Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Royal Assent

Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. The Petroleum Royalties (Relief) and Continental Shelf Act 1989.
2. The Port of Tyne Act 1989.
3. The London Regional Transport Act 1989.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

HYTHE MARINA VILLAGE (SOUTHAMPTON)

WAVESCREEN BILL (By Order)

INTERNATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK BILL (By Order)

ISLE OF WIGHT BILL (By Order)

LONDON UNDERGROUND VICTORIA BILL (By Order)

PENZANCE ALBERT PIER EXTENSION BILL (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 9 February.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE

Nuclear Weapons

Mr. John Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of the defence budget has been devoted to nuclear weapons in each of the last five years.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Younger): The estimated percentage share of the defence budget devoted to strategic nuclear weapons in each of the past five years is, in 1984–85 2·3 per cent., in 1985–86 2·8 per cent., in 1986–87 3·6 per cent., in 1987–88 4·7 per cent., in 1988–89 5·6 per cent.

Mr. Evans: As Britain's defence budget has been reduced over the past three years from what it was originally projected to be, and as the nuclear element will be substantially increased if the Prime Minister's obsession with modernising tactical nuclear weapons is successful, will the Secretary of State give a categorical assurance that he will protect and defend the conventional weapons element of his budget in the future?

Mr. Younger: Yes, I can give that categorical assurance. The matter should be seen in perspective. The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that this year's defence budget, excluding nuclear strategic forces, is £¾

billion higher in real terms than the whole of the 1978–79 defence budget, even including the Polaris programme. An enormously greater amount is being spent on conventional forces than there ever was before 1979.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am sure that my right hen. Friend will join me in welcoming Mr. Gorbachev's efforts to reduce the Soviet Union's defence capacity, but when thinking of this country's future need for nuclear defence will he bear strongly in mind the fact that some smaller countries will have a nuclear capability—especially Israel and South Africa, both of which probably have that capacity already—and others such as Libya will, unfortunately, probably develop it? Does he agree that whatever happens between the two superpowers it is unlikely that this country Bill be able to do without an element of nuclear deterrence in the foreseeable future?

Mr. Younger: I certainly share my hon. Friend's pleasure at the improvements in the Soviet position and the reductions in Soviet weapon systems that have been announced. We shall be watching carefully to be sure that they actually happen. I also agree that, while seeking further reductions by every means that we can, it is still essential to keep up our strength in nuclear and conventional forces until the Soviet forces decrease to roughly the same level as our own.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: In relation to the production of weapons-grade plutonium, will the Secretary of State make it clear that the decision by British Nuclear Fuels last week to announce a feasibility study into the construction of an advanced gas-cooled reactor or pressurised water reactor at Sellafield is in no way dependent on a contribution from the Ministry of Defence, that the only contracts that would go to BNFU for weapons-grade plutonium would be extending existing contracts from the facility already in place and that it is a misrepresentation by journalists to say that the plant will be built to fulfil Britain's nuclear weapons requirements?

Mr. Younger: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the announcement by BNFL last week has nothing to do with me. He will have to ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy as the announcement has no connection with the defence programme as such.

Soviet Union (Parliamentarians' Visits)

Mr. Moss: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy on briefing h on. and right hon. Members undertaking visits to the Soviet Union.

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archiie Hamilton): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence would be happy to consider any request for briefing from hon. or right hon. Members undertaking visits to the Soviet Union.

Mr. Moss: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Labour party's recent delegation to Moscow, in search of its defence policy and to audition for a part in the nuclear disarmament show, came back with a script that my hon. Friend's Department could have written in advance—that the Russians totally reject the Labour party's unilateralist approach and much prefer the Government's multilateral list approach?

Mr. Hamilton: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. General Vladimir Lobov was reported as saying that although unilateralism is an imaginative gesture it is neither realistic nor a serious option for a major power. If that team of hon. Members had come for a briefing at the Ministry of Defence we could have given them the information and saved them the cost of the journey.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does the Minister agree that one important issue that could be raised by those visiting the Soviet Union is chemical weapons? Does he agree that although it is right to give a cautious welcome to Mr. Schevardnadze's announcement at the beginning of January we should urge the Soviet Union to provide a full and frank disclosure of its chemical weapons capability? Does he further agree that we should urge the Soviet Union to allow our experts the same kind of access that Soviet experts were recently afforded at Porton Down?

Mr. Hamilton: The hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely right. Access and verification are the keys to the whole business of controlling chemical weapons in the future. In that statement from Mr. Schevardnadze the Soviet Union admitted to having 50,000 tonnes of chemical agents—the first time that the Soviet Union had ever admitted to having any chemical capability—and even that figure differed greatly from our estimates of the tonnage of chemical weapons held by the Soviet Union.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Is my hon. Friend aware that as a member of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs I visited Moscow in November and met the same people as the Labour delegation met? That delegation will probably have returned in total confusion because it is clear that there is a high regard in Moscow for the consistent defence policy followed by the British Government? It is also clear that the Soviet Union has started its own reductions in the face of our steadfastness in the past.

Mr. Hamilton: That is absolutely correct. My hon. Friend is right that the Soviet Union respects people who negotiate from a position of strength rather than weakness.

Mr. Douglas: When briefings are given to politicians visiting the Soviet Union does the Ministry of Defence classify D5 Trident missiles as a first-strike or a second-strike weapon?

Mr. Hamilton: That is a hypothetical question because in practice no briefings are given to hon. Members visiting the Soviet Union.

Mr. Redwood: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is better to go to Washington and Brussels first when trying to construct a defence and disarmament strategy so that nothing is given away in talks to the Russians due to not knowing our allies' position?

Mr. Hamilton: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When formulating a defence policy it is strange to discuss it with the Communist Government. That must be an indication of the Leftward leanings of the Opposition.

Low Flying (Germany)

Mr. Fatchett: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received from (i)

German citizens and (ii) the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany seeking a reduction of low flying in Germany.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Michael Neubert): My right hon. Friend has not received any such representations from citizens of the Federal Republic of Germany, but last week he had discussions with his German colleague, Dr. Scholz, about a wide range of issues of mutual interest, including ways in which it might be possible to ease the impact of low-flying training on German citizens.

Mr. Fatchett: I am glad that the Minister is now giving some information about last week's meeting because the Ministry of Defence press release made no reference to German representations about low-flying aircraft. Are we to understand from the Minister's answer that there will now be a reduction in the number of low flights over West Germany? If that is the case, will there be a subsequent increase in the number of such flights over the United Kingdom? If so, may I advise the Minister that that would be totally unacceptable to the people of this country?

Mr. Neubert: None of those assumptions is correct. The hon. Gentleman might have helped himself by studying the transcript of the press conference given by my right hon. Friend and the German Defence Minister.

Mr. Mans: Does my hon. Friend agree that the low flying carried out in West Germany and in this country is an integral part of our defence posture in terms of deterrence? Does he also agree that the amount of low flying carried out in this country is roughly the same as that carried out in West Germany and that the vast majority of the German population understand the need for it and would support its continuance at the present level?

Mr. Neubert: My hon. Friend is correct. Low-level flying is a military requirement and there is an essential minimum of flying training that must be carried out over West European terrain. There is substantial public support for that training because it is considered a crucial part of our operating capability.

Mr. Molyneaux: Does the Minister not feel that the German people, of all people, would understand the vital necessity of low flying training, bearing in mind that if Goering's Luftwaffe air fleet had crossed the Channel in 1940 at wave top height the outcome of the battle of Britain might have been very different?

Mr. Neubert: We can all learn from history and I am sure that the West German public will not be slow to take that lesson.

Anglo-French Reciprocal Purchasing Initiative

Mr. Quentin Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been achieved through the Anglo-French reciprocal purchasing initiative.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): The progress of this initiative has been good. Some contracts have already been signed and more tenders are under consideration on both sides of the Channel. A French contracts bulletin is now being published, three successful


conferences have been held and there are regular and increasing contacts between procurement staffs at all levels.

Mr. Davies: Given that public procurement in general would be on a non-discriminatory basis in the European single market after 1992, does my hon. Friend agree that in defence too, there are the strongest reasons for achieving maximum economies of scale in research and production and the greatest inter-operability of equipment? Does he accept that he and his colleagues will receive the strongest support in the House for any progress that they can make in that direction?

Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friend is right in identifying three of the main advantages to be obtained from agreements such as the one to which the question relates. First, there is a saving in research and development expenditure; secondly, there are savings from longer production runs; thirdly, of course, he raised the important point that there are benefits to the alliance from greater inter-operability of service equipment.

Atomic Weapons Testing (Compensation)

Mr. Michael J. Martin: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had about compensating those affected by British atomic weapons testing in Australia.

Mr. Sainsbury: Ministers have had a number of discussions with various groups and individuals on the question of possible compensation for those who have claimed that their ill health is attributable to participation in the United Kingdom's nuclear test.

Mr. Martin: The Minister will know of the recent Australian Supreme Court decision when Mr. Rick Johnstone, an ex-airman who was present at a British atomic site in the 1950s, was awarded £300,000 compensation. Surely it is only fair to the families and to the surviving airmen, some of whom are in great pain and discomfort, for the British Government to provide proper compensation for men who were present at those sites in good faith.

Mr. Sainsbury: The judgment of the Australian court is not yet available in this country. We shall certainly study it with great care when it is available because we are anxious to be as fair as possible and to treat all our service men on an equal basis. Indeed, if we established to our satisfaction that there was a link between a person's presence at the atomic tests and an illness we would be anxious to give compensation. When the Australian judgment becomes available, however, we may find that it is not directly relevant to the issue with which the hon. Gentleman is concerned.

Mr. Churchill: Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that it is beyond the bounds of what is reasonable to expect British ex-service men who took part in this country's Australian and Pacific nuclear test programme in the 1950s and who are now suffering from leukaemia and various forms of cancer—some have already died—to prove, as the Government at present require them to prove, that their illnesses are a direct result of that nuclear test programme? Bearing in mind the service that those people gave to this country in the prime of their youth, would it not be more

satisfactory to consider whether there is a reasonable balance of probability that their illnesses were caused by exposure to radiation during that test programme? Will my hon. Friend consider that?

Mr. Sainsbury: We have the greatest sympathy with those who are suffering ill health and who genuinely and sincerely believe that that is attributable to their participation in tests. My hon. Friend will be aware, as will the House, of the National Radiological Protection Board's extensive research programme and of its findings, and we are continuing to keep that under review. My hon. Friend will also be aware that in our actions we must be fair to all service men—those who took part in the tests and those who did not—and treat all of them fairly and equally.

Mr. Boyes: In view of the strong comments from both sides of the House, is not the Minister's reply complacent, insulting and a kick in the teeth for British service men? Is the Minister saying that British service men are worth less than Australian service men, that British service men suffered less than Australian service men or that British service men are more resistant to radiation than Australian service men? If the answer to those questions is no and Mr. Rick Johnstone receives £300,000 compensation, should not British service men receive an equal amount for their suffering over the many years following those tests?

Mr. Sainsbury: I appreciate the concern on both sides of the House about this important issue. That is why the National Radiological Protection Board conducted its independent research, and it would be unreasonable completely to ignore the outcome of that research. It might be wiser for the hon. Gentleman to delay his somewhat outspoken comments about Mr. Johnstone until we have all had the opportunity to see the Australian court's judgment which is not yet available in Britain.

Belize

Mr. Ashby: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when next he intends to visit Belize.

Mr. Younger: I was in Belize last month to visit British forces there. I was greatly impressed by the efficiency and enthusiasm with which they are fulfilling their important role. I was also able to meet the Prime Minister of Belize, Mr. Esquivel. I have no plans to visit Belize again in the immediate future.

Mr. Ashby: Without wishing to give Guatemala a wrong signal, will my right hon. Friend consider the good will towards Britain and the progress towards democracy in Guatemala when deciding upon the level of the defence forces to be kept in Belize?

Mr. Younger: Yes, my hon. Friend is correct. I found great good will towards the British defence forces and the British Government, and the Prime Minister of Belize expressed his gratitude for all that the British forces do there. My hon. Friend will know that talks are continuing with the Government of Guatemala, but in the meantime I assured the Prime Minister that British forces would remain for an appropriate period at the request of the Government of Belize.

Mr. Frank Cook: When assessing the conditions of service men and service women in Belize, will the Secretary


of State bear in mind the comments made during the debate on the Defence Estimates about pay, allowances and conditions throughout our armed forces and give a categorical assurance that he will consider council house—[Interruption.] A Freudian slip, Mr. Speaker—I would buy another if I had the chance. [Interruption.] It is Labour party policy.
Will the Secretary of State give the House a categorical assurance that he will consider the points made about house purchase assistance and that service pay and allowances will be guaranteed against inflation?

Mr. Younger: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's remarks and I recall what was said in the recent Estimates debate. I assure him that we give high priority to trying to obtain an appropriate form of military salary with a mix of allowances to reflect service men's conditions. As the hon. Gentleman knows, every year the armed forces pay review body has made recommendations and every year the Government have implemented them in full.
I found the soldiers in Belize living in conditions less comfortable than in Britain or the British Army of the Rhine, but all were clear that they greatly enjoyed being there and found it most valuable training.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that Belize is the last place where British soldiers can have experience of jungle warfare? Will he therefore take a robust line with his Treasury colleagues?

Mr. Yonger: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point. Belize is certainly a good place for jungle training. I was able to take part in some jungle training myself—[Interruption.] It is very valuable and useful in the House. Training in such conditions is undoubtedly valuable for British forces, all of whom have expressed great satisfaction at the training facilities available.

Mr. Cartwright: Does the Secretary of State accept that the so-called temporary nature of the British military presence in Belize has been used as a reason not to provide the kind of investment in facilities that is really needed in such an extreme climate? As British troops have been there for 40 years, can we not give them the decent living and working conditions that they deserve if they are to stay there much longer?

Mr. Younger: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point. We are examining the accounting methods used for planning improvements in Belize. I shall be looking at that very carefully in future.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in that part of central America the presence of British forces in Belize is regarded as a strong force for stability, especially in the run-up to the Guatemalan presidential election? Will my right hon. Friend also comment on the role of British forces in Belize as a forward emergency task force in the case of hurricane damage in the Caribbean?

Mr. Younger: During my visit it was made very clear to me by all concerned that the presence of British troops is very welcome to the people and Government of Belize and also, I believe, to the Government of Guatemala. All concerned made a point of expressing to me their tremendous gratitude for the help that the British services gave during hurricane Gilbert earlier last year.

United States Secretary of State for Defence

Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met the United States Secretary of Defence; and what matters were discussed.

Mr. Younger: I met the United States Secretary of Defence at the Wehrkunde conference at the end of last month. A range of matters of mutual interest were discussed.

Mr. Mullin: What discussions has the Secretary of State had with the Americans about their plans to double their spending on military bases in Britain in the next two years? Has he been consulted, and does he have any plans to tell Parliament about them, or must we rely on reports from Washington?

Mr. Younger: Any such improvements to American bases in this country have to be subject to the approval of the British Government. We understand that the projected improvements are to improve existing facilities for existing services at those bases.

Mr. Oppenheim: In considering the general principle of discussing defence matters, does my right hon. Friend agree that Bruce Kent got things right for once when he said that anyone who needed to go to Moscow to discuss defence matters obviously did not have a defence policy of their own?

Mr. Younger: I saw a report of that remark, but I have not raised or discussed it with the United States Administration.

Mr. Livingstone: Does the Secretary of State agree that the doubling of defence expenditure on bases in Britain by the Americans would broadcast completely the wrong signal to the Soviet Union at this time and would undoubtedly strengthen those forces in the Soviet Union who are trying to slow down the pace of Gorbachev's proposals for disarmament? Will the Secretary of State therefore join what I think would be the overwhelming majority view in Britain, ensure that the expenditure does not take place and instead respond positively to Gorbachev's proposals and give a European lead towards reducing the presence of American troops in Europe?

Mr. Younger: I have already explained that the expenditure on United States bases is to make existing facilities more effective. The hon. Gentleman is way behind the game with regard to reductions, and Mr. Gorbachev is miles behind this country and NATO in the reductions that we have made. Since 1979 we have reduced our nuclear warheads by 2,400, even before the INF treaty was implemented. That is a reduction of about 35 per cent. in nuclear warheads. Mr. Gorbachev has a long way to go before he gets anywhere near that.

Mr. Bill Walker: When my right hon. Friend next meets the United States Secretary of Defence, will he bring to his attention that it is essential that the United States Air Force and the Royal Air Force maintain the ability and capability of flying low and fast to hit targets? Never again must we have the situation that we faced in 1940, when air crew were required to fly with great valour Fairey Battles and Bristol Blenheims against heavily defended targets at


the cost of severe losses. Winning a Victoria cross was never a substitute for the ability to take out a target effectively and properly.

Mr. Younger: I thoroughly agree with my hon. Friend, and so does all of NATO. Although I feel sure that it will not be necessary to remind the new United States Secretary of Defence of that fact, I feel sure that he, too, agrees strongly with my hon. Friend's comments.

Mr. Sean Hughes: In view of the reply by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces to my question last month, in which he stated that there will still be a role for tactical nuclear weapons in the event of conventional parity being reached, did the right hon. Gentleman explain to the United States Secretary of Defence that the British Government have unilaterally changed the basis of flexible response, which they have consistently argued allows for the tactical nuclear option because of the Warsaw pact's overwhelming conventional superiority?

Mr. Younger: There has been no change in the doctrine of flexible response. If, as the hon. Gentleman and I hope, the stage is reached where there is parity of conventional weapons, a very different situation will exist in the world of arms control generally. No doubt all sorts of matters would have to be examined afresh.

Mr. Brazier: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we owe the Americans a great debt of gratitude for their commitment to Europe? Does he further agree that, at a time when the American foreign exchange costs of keeping their forces in Europe are approximately equal to their entire overseas payments deficit, future agendas should include discussions on burden sharing?

Mr. Younger: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that the debate on burden sharing in NATO should continue in the months ahead. I have no doubt that there is now better appreciation on the other side of the Atlantic of the large amount that European nations do in their own defence—and there is a determination to do more whenever we can.

Nuclear Accidents (Emergency Planning)

Mr. Alton: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what advice is given to area health authorities for emergency planning in the event of radioactive emission from a nuclear-powered submarine while in port; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Younger: Area health authorities are represented on the liaison committees that produce safety schemes for all United Kingdom ports in which there are berths for nuclear-powered submarines. They are provided with information on possible consequences of, and hazards from, any submarine nuclear reactor accident, and advice on suitable protective measures to deal with such an event.

Mr. Alton: Has the Secretary of State had an opportunity to consider a report published recently by academics at the University of Wales, suggesting that the Royal Navy grievously underestimates the effects of a nuclear submarine accident on the civilian population in places such as Plymouth, Liverpool and Cardiff? Has he read today's report from Greenpeace, suggesting that levels of radiation are nine times higher than official acceptable levels in places near to bases in Scotland? Does

the Secretary of State agree that safety levels should be reconsidered, that local authorities should reassess their plans for dealing with nuclear accidents, and that restrictions should be placed on submarines entering densely populated areas?

Mr. Younger: We are extremely strong on nuclear submarine safety. We would never allow a nuclear submarine to enter any port unless it was thoroughly approved by the nuclear safety inspectorate concerned, which reports directly to us. The hon. Gentleman can be well assured of that. As to this morning's report from Greenpeace, I see nothing to quarrel with in the methodology used in calculating estimated radiation levels, but I quarrel with the conclusions that are drawn. As I understand it, the Greenpeace study concludes, that, at worst, approximately 1 per cent. of the permitted level of radiation might be suffered by somebody affected in the areas studied. To place that in perspective, it is equivalent to the amount of radiation to which we are all exposed on a return shuttle flight to Glasgow. It is absurd to suggest that that causes any danger to anyone.

Mr. McFall: The Secretary of State knows that the emergency planning procedures for the Clyde public safety scheme have been revised. Will he give an undertaking today that the Ministry of Defence will have meaningful discussions with the local authority, and to demonstrate that approach will the Secretary of State allow the local authorities funding for independent monitoring so that public confidence in the area may be maintained?

Mr. Younger: I can certainly assure the hon. Gentleman that we are consulting local authorities, and will continue to do so, on an ongoing basis to draw up public safety schemes. I understand that authorities in his area are among those taking part in such discussions. With regard to reporting on these schemes, we provide the maximum information that we can, and that should be sufficient for everyone to take a full part in the discussions.

NATO Secretary-General

Mr. Riddick: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next intends to meet the secretary-general of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation; and what matters he hopes to discuss.

Mr. Younger: I next expect to see Dr. Wörner at the meeting of NATO's nuclear planning group in the late spring. We shall discuss a range of subjects of mutual interest.

Mr. Riddick: When my right hon. Friend next meets the secretary-general, will he discuss the urgent need to modernise NATO's short-range nuclear missiles, particularly bearing in mind the great superiority of the Soviet Union in this area? Can he assure the House that if there is a change of policy in this area it will be as a result of tough negotiations with the Russians rather than of having accepted the cosy advice of the Russians?

Mr. Younger: I note what my hon. Friend says. NATO will have to come to the question of the modernisation of short-range weapons and I am sure that it will bear in mind that there are very strong arguments for having such weapons—arguments that I have often deployed myself. There are also strong arguments, although I do not agree


with them, for not having these weapons at all. But I submit that there are no arguments for having out-of-date unmodernised weapons, which are useless to all concerned.

Mr. Duffy: Will the Defence Secretary impress upon Dr. Wörner the supreme importance of defence co-operation in these days of escalating defence costs, if the era of structural disarmament is not to be hastened, because the latest thinking of Tom Callahan on his familiar theme is really very alarming? Will he, further, remind Dr. Wörner that no member nation has done more than the United Kingdom to promote joint collaboration?

Mr. Younger: I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman. The more collaboration there can be between allies, the better. Indeed, if we do not pursue that we shall find it increasingly difficult to afford the systems we need.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Soviet forces have a great preponderance of short-range nuclear weapons compared with the NATO Alliance and, furthermore, are continuing to modernise them?

Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. The Soviet Union has modernised all its shorter-range systems in the last few years. It is, therefore, a very obvious ploy to try to discourage NATO from doing the same. Decisions will have to come up soon on that and I am quite sure that the balance of advantage is to make sure that NATO still has an adequate range of options for its flexible response strategy.

Mr. Beggs: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is still desirable that the Irish Republic should play a part in NATO? Will he take the opportunity when he meets the secretary-general to discuss that as a real possibility?

Mr. Younger: I note what the hon. Gentleman says, but strictly speaking that is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary.

Mr. Hill: In the discussions with NATO perhaps my right hon. Friend will remember that the burden sharing throughout Europe could be well represented by the European pillar of NATO, which is, of course, the Western European Union? I feel that groups such as WEU should be involved more than they are at present in such discussions.

Mr. Younger: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and I are joint chairmen of WEU this year, I strongly agree with what he says and I think that the WEU is acting as quite an effective way of expressing the European contribution to our collective defence.

Mr. O'Neill: Given the Secretary of State's enthusiasm for short-range weapons, could he, in his discussions with Manfred Wörner, take account of German anxieties about these weapons, because it is over Germany's land area that they would travel? Could he explain to the House his views on a follow-on to Lance, for which very little enthusiasm is being expressed in the Federal Republic? Does he think, therefore, that there will be any decision before December 1990, when the Federal Republic has its Bundestag elections?

Mr. Younger: I feel that I should begin by saying, "Welcome back." I was beginning to fear from the hon. Gentleman's notable silence earlier that he must have visited a Trappist monastery in Russia, with due results.
Of course I agree that shorter-range nuclear weapons are an important subject. Negotiations are still an essential part of our flexible response strategy, and that applies just as much to the defence of Germany as to that of any other part of Europe.
We shall have to address the possibility of a follow-on system to Lance, but as no such system has yet been selected, we are not in a position to say whether we shall take part.

Mr. Nelson: In view of the chairmanship of the independent European programme group which my right hon. Friend will be undertaking over the next two years, will he say what discussions he may have with the secretary-general about the importance of transnational co-operation on an industrial base to ensure that we in Europe continue at least to keep a proportion of the equipment with which we supply our own defence needs?

Mr. Younger: Yes, I shall be keeping the secretary-general in close touch with the work of the IEPG during the next two years when we shall be chairing that body. I know that he fully supports what we are trying to do. At present we are trying in particular to create an open market in defence equipment throughout western Europe, which should be greatly to the advantage of collaboration and the procurement of our equipment generally.

Dr. Owen: Would it not be wiser, in view of the divisiveness on modernisation in the Federal Republic of Germany, to concentrate first on a stand-off air-launch missile—on which it is probably possible to reach unanimity in NATO—and essential modernisation for Tornado and F-111 aircraft, and to leave aside the question of Lance for the next couple of years?

Mr. Younger: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's point. As he knows, we are considering with our allies the best course to follow in replacing our free-fall bombs, and one of the possibilities would be a stand-off air-launch missile. Discussions are continuing.
It is worth pointing out that, while there are still divisions among our friends in Germany about the precise course to take, all concerned in the German Government are clearly agreed that they must not do anything that could lead to a third zero, which would be gravely damaging to the policy of flexible response on which we all depend.

Mr. Jack: My right hon. Friend will be aware of Dr. Wörner's interest in the announcement of the Tornado midlife update. Will he tell us when that will occur?

Mr. Younger: We shall be making announements about the precise details, but I have no doubt that the Tornado midlife update will have to be brought forward soon, as it is a high priority.

Polaris Fleet

Mr. Cryer: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the latest annual cost of maintenance of the Polaris fleet.

Mr. Archie Hamilton: In the current financial year it is estimated that some £271 million will be spent on the maintenance of the Polaris fleet.

Mr. Cryer: Is not that sum staggering when we bear in mind the recent expenditure of £500 million on replacement rocket motors? Will the Minister comment on the Government's morality—a morality which cuts back expenditure on, for example, new school building in my constituency, yet can lavish nearly £1 billion on new motors and annual maintenance?
Will the Minister also comment on the morality of deploying Polaris missiles which, if used, would bring about more exterminations than Pol Pot and Hitler put together? Why does the rest of the world reject that disgusting morality?

Mr. Hamilton: Any defence expenditure must be seen in terms of its deterrent effect, and there is no doubt that our independent nuclear deterrent has proved to be very good value for money. That view was accepted by the last Labour Government, who agreed that the Polaris system should be subject to the Chevaline update and were so ashamed of their decision that they kept it secret. They were worried about the reaction of unilateralists on their own Back Benches such as the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer).

Mr. Leigh: Does my hon. Friend think it likely that the subject of the cost of maintaining the Polaris fleet was raised at the meeting between Labour party leaders and the Soviet leadership in Moscow recently? Could the deafening silence from the Opposition Benches today on that visit he explained by a large dose of pique at being snubbed by a Soviet Government who would much rather deal with a party not imbued with what Brezhnev called "the naivety of unilateralism"?

Mr. Hamilton: One problem we have is that the delegation that has come back from Moscow has been quiet about what was discussed. It would be helpful if the members of that delegation could reveal rather more of their discussion.

European Fighter Aircraft (Radar)

Mr. Meale: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the latest procurement plans for the EFA radar system.

Mr. Sainsbury: A report by the prime contractor is currently under consideration by NEFMA, the international management agency for the EFA programme, and by the collaborating nations. I would hope that a decision on the winning consortium could be made early this year.

Mr. Meale: Will the Minister comment on the specification and supply of EFA radar systems—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading"]. Will he ensure that his decision will not prejudice Britain's electronics and radar industries—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading"]—research base, and— [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Sainsbury: I regret to say that, whether or not it was read, I was unable to hear the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question.

Mr. Meale: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must get on. Questions to the Prime Minister.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. David Porter: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 February.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including the Spanish Foreign Minister. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with the Soviet Deputy Prime Minister. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

Mr. Porter: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the widespread concern about fraud; about reports of the siphoning off of EEC funds to the IRA and the Mafia and about often poor policing of basic EEC rules? How does my right hon. Friend intend to protect the interests of the British people in general and the taxpayers in particular?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that the extent of fraud in the use of EC funds revealed by the Court of Auditors is a matter of great concern. Some of the remedies are in national hands, but we believe that the rules applied by the Community must be tightened up and any suspect cases investigated vigorously. The Parliament has also raised this matter with the Commission, and I shall hope to raise it at the next European Council.

Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister say why, in meetings with the water companies, the Government have given the green light for huge increases in water charges?

The Prime Minister: There are two aspects of the water companies. The water companies as such are the privatised section; the water authorities are being denationalised. The water companies—as the right hon. Gentleman will see if he looks at the record for the last four years—have had both lower price increases and have charged for the last four years much lower prices per household than have the water authorities.

Mr. Kinnock: With an answer like that, I wonder why the right hon. Lady's Ministers say that these huge rises are unjustified. Will the Prime Minister confirm that at a meeting at the Department of the Environment on 1 December it was agreed with the private water companies that they should
raise their tariffs to the maximum permitted
and that they were further
strongly advised not to suggest that privatisation as such makes their tariff increases necessary"?
Why that advice and why the deceit?

The Prime Minister: The facts I have given to the right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.]—he can get from the tables. They show that the water companies have been charging for the last four years prices below those of the nationalised statutory authorities. Several statutory companies have announced increases in prices. The amount under regulation that they will be able to charge will depend on the cost of the service that they provide and their reasonable profits. Therefore, there is virtually no point in putting up their prices now.

Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister is now telling us that those rises are justified. Why did the Leader of the House tell us yesterday that those rises were not justified?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman did not listen. I said that the increase in prices—if they are trying to start from a higher base—will have virtually no effect because we are introducing a better—[Interruption.] He should listen.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister has been asked a question and must be given the opportunity to answer it.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman clearly does not like the facts. We are introducing a better system of regulation for water companies, under which they will need to satisfy the Director General of Water Services, introduced under the Bill, that the proposed increases are justified. At the moment, their prices are below those of the nationalised authorities.

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Greenway: Has my right hon. Friend seen that shares in the National Freight Corporation were quoted for the first time on the stock exchange yesterday, and that its employees saw the profits from their small shareholdings in that privatised company rise enormously? Is she aware that if the Labour party had had its way, those employees, instead of receiving that profit for their families would now be working for a sterile nationalised industry?

The Prime Minister: Yes. The privatisation of the National Freight Corporation has been very successful, both for consumers and for those who worked extremely hard in the industry to make it successful. Hard work has given them an excellent reward; they have been able to build up capital, which they would never have been able to do under a Labour Government. We wish them well and thank them for their great endeavours.

Mrs. Mahon: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mrs. Mahon: Will the Prime Minister give a guarantee to the House that, under the health review, existing district health authorities will retain their accident and emergency departments? Since this is a life and death issue, will she answer yes or no?

The Prime Minister: The district health authorities and the self-governing hospitals will have to retain their accident and emergency departments because that is a fundamental core service. Either the district health authorities or the self-governing hospitals will have to run effective accident and emergency services.

Sir Peter Emery: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether she has extended—and if not, whether she will consider extending today—an official invitation to

visit this country to President George Bush, to ensure that the alliance between Great Britain and America stays as strong as it has always been?

The Prime Minister: President Bush knows that he will be welcome in this country at any time when he is able to come. He might have other matters on his mind at the moment. He will be visiting Europe for the economic summit in July and there is a possibility of a NATO Heads of Government meeting. We need have no fear about the special relationship. It will continue as staunchly in the future as it has in the past.

Mr. Vaz: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Vaz: The Prime Minister has spent the past 10 years lecturing the nation on law and order. Is she aware that in Leicestershire violent crime has risen by 73 per cent. during that period? In his miserable attempt to deal with the problem, the Home Secretary has announced an increase of only an extra 18 police officers, despite the request by the chief constable for an extra 89 officers. When will the Government end their conspiracy with the muggers, rapists and others who survive to destroy society because of this Government?

The Prime Minister: Of course, I reject totally what the hon. Gentleman has said. A Government who have increased the numbers of police enormously, the amount of money enormously, the amount of equipment enormously and the amount of training enormously and have received a great deal of co-operation from the public, a Government who support the prevention of terrorism Act, and a Government who have increased maximum sentences, are a Government who have been fighting crime. We wish that we had the full co-operation of Opposition Members.

Mr. Yeo: Will my right hon. Friend convey to her ministerial team at the Treasury the warm thanks of the charity world following yesterday's announcement that charitable expenditure on new construction work is largely to retain its existing zero rating for VAT purposes?

The Prime Minister: Yes, of course. Yesterday the new VAT regulations following the judgment of the European Court were published. We have taken full advantage of the latitude that is permitted to give a very good deal to charities and also to provide transitional arrangements for others who will be adversely affected. A very good job has been done.

Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Given that it is Government policy that before a school moves out of local authority control there should be a vote by parents, and before housing moves out of local government control there should be a vote by tenants, why is it not explicit Government policy that before a hospital such as Guy's in my constituency moves out of local authority control—[Interruption]—


local health authority control, there should be a vote by the users of that service, namely the patients in the Lewisham and North Southwark district health authority area? Will the Prime Minister give an undertaking that those people will have a vote, and, if not, why not?

The Prime Minister: Schools come under local authorities, as do council houses, so it is very obvious that parents and tenants should have a vote. But hospitals, as the hon. Member knows, do not.

Mr. Hayes: Will my right hon. Friend express her deep concern to the Dutch and Belgian authorities about their failure to prosecute two Irishmen who were found in possession of weapons allegedly used in the murder of two British service men? Does she agree that international terrorism will be beaten only by international co-operation?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree wholeheartedly with that proposition, and from most countries we get such co-operation. As my hon. Friend is aware, there are times when we do not succeed in getting people extradited, but for the most part we get increasing co-operation, particularly among the police and the security services, in the fight against terrorism.

Mr. Harry Barnes: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Barnes: Has the Prime Minister seen the league table that was published in Hansard on 11 January showing that the Derbyshire county council, which is Labour-controlled, has the best staff-pupil ratio of any shire county? It is top in special education, top in secondary education, and second, by a hair's breadth, in primary education. Will the right hon. Lady congratulate the Derbyshire county council on this achievement?

The Prime Minister: I understand that it also has very, very high spending. But I am very glad if it has excellent education; the hon. Member must be very pleased with Conservative education policy.

Mr. Hayward: Will my right hon. Friend consider the monopoly that currently operates with the BBC and ITV in terms of the prior publication of programmes, particularly since we now have Sky TV's competing channels?

The Prime Minister: Yes, but the whole of broadcasting is, in fact, changing because of the speed of new technology and, of course, because of the alternative channels. I think that we shall soon have the debate on the White Paper, when we shall be able to consider these matters and how to deal with them in legislation.

Mr. Buchan: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Buchan: Has the Prime Minister yet had the chance to reconsider her grossly offensive speech in Scotland on Friday? Has no one told her that she united practically the entire Scottish population with her objectionable views? Does she not realise that the stupidity of her declared veto is as dangerous as the stupid separatism of Scottish Nationalists? Are they in consort with each other?

The Prime Minister: If I may say so, in the place where I gave the speech before 675 people. many of them journalists, it was very well received. I pointed out that under a Conservative Government, Scotland is doing better than ever and that Scotland could not possibly have achieved that response to Conservative policies without being in tune with them, even though many people, like the hon. Gentleman, find it difficult to admit it.

Mr. Adley: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Adley: Now that the Russians are leaving or have left Afghanistan, the Cubans and South Africans have left Namibia, and the Vietnamese are leaving Kampuchea, will my right hon. Friend join me in hoping that ere long the Israelis will leave the occupied west bank and Gaza?

The Prime Minister: The Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan is a great tribute to the resistance who never let up in their fight for their country. Also, it is a great tribute to Pakistan which has received so many refugees. We are very pleased that the withdrawal is virtually complete. I join my hon. Friend in hoping that we shall soon see negotiations begin on a settlement to the middle east problem.

Road Safety (White Paper)

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Paul Channon): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the Government's proposals to reform road traffic law. A White Paper, called "The Road User and the Law", has been laid this afternoon. The White Paper responds to the recommendations of the North review of road traffic law, published last April. I pay tribute to the review committee for the valuable work which it did.
The Government's determination to improve road safety is clear. We are committed to cut road casualties, especially those killed or seriously injured, by one third by the end of the century. The proposals in the White Paper will play a major part in achieving that target.
This country now has the best road safety record in Europe. But there is still a long way to go. Over 5,000 people died and more than 300,000 were injured as a result of road accidents in 1987. Behind those stark figures lie appalling personal tragedies. Probably every Member of this House has known someone hurt or killed on one of Britain's roads.
The White Paper brings forward a wide range of proposals to tackle the next steps in improving safety on our roads. These proposals aim to improve the structure of road traffic law, to increase its public acceptability, and to make it operate more fairly and simply. We aim to ensure that the penalty matches the offence and that those who drive very badly are properly punished.
The present reckless driving offence does not operate satisfactorily in England and Wales, and must be changed. At the moment drivers are escaping conviction, because the law turns on the driver's state of mind rather than the state of driving. The Government therefore propose to replace the reckless driving offence with a new offence of dangerous driving based more firmly on the observable standard of driving. This offence will have two ingredients: the standard of driving must fall far below that expected of a competent and careful driver, and the driver must carry a danger of physical injury or serious damage to property.
The present offence of causing death by reckless driving will be replaced by a new offence of causing death by dangerous driving. The present lower level offence of careless driving will be retained.
One of the most serious threats to safety on the roads is drink driving. There is much public concern about the inadequacy of the present law for dealing with drunk drivers who kill. The Government will meet this concern.
As the House is aware, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department announced last week a period of public consultation on possible changes to police powers to require breath tests. In this White Paper we propose to create a new offence of causing death by careless driving while unfit through drink, drugs or certain other forms of medical incapacity. The maximum penalty will be tough for this offence: five years' imprisonment, obligatory disqualification of at least two years, and an unlimited fine.
There has been mounting concern about the mindless behaviour of vandals who drop objects from motorway bridges, endangering lives. We intend to clamp down on this kind of malicious hooliganism by creating a new criminal offence. There will be a maximum penalty of

seven years for those who endanger road users by intentionally obstructing a road or interfering with traffic signs and signals where they are, or ought to be, aware that personal injury or damage to property may result.
The surest way to reduce road casualties is to improve standards of driving. We are therefore proposing that certain categories of road traffic offender must pass a new, longer and more stringent driving test before a licence is restored following a period of disqualification. We shall introduce retesting on a phased basis, starting with those convicted of the most serious bad driving offences. Ultimately, the test could be extended to all drivers disqualified as a result of careless driving and other accident offences. The private sector will be encouraged to develop suitable training courses. We shall monitor progress closely and will seek powers, for use as necessary, to require instructors intending to offer retraining to be licensed specifically for that purpose.
We propose to set up an experiment to see whether we can change the attitudes of drink drivers. Powers will be sought to allow the courts in selected areas to order those convicted of drink-driving offences to attend special rehabilitation courses.
The penalty point system has proved very successful. To make it even more effective, we intend to make certain changes. These include a new range of three to six penalty points for speeding offences dealt with by court proceedings, which will enable the courts to deal more effectively with the more serious cases. The maximum penalty for the offences of failure to stop and failure to report an accident will be increased to include six months' imprisonment.
Technology has an important role to play in the detection of certain traffic offences. The Government therefore intend to amend the law so that cameras can be used as sole evidence for speeding and traffic light offences. Safeguards will be provided to ensure that the equipment used is both accurate and reliable. We shall continue to monitor the development of enforcement technology in other areas of road traffic law and will consider allowing its wider use as and when equipment of sufficient accuracy and reliability becomes available.
The White Paper contains a wide variety of proposals to make road traffic law simpler and easier to understand in a variety of ways. Most of the proposals will apply throughout Great Britain. However, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is considering whether the new dangerous driving offence should extend to Scotland, where the present reckless driving offence has not given rise to the same problems of interpretation as in England and Wales.
The Government's proposals will bring about significant changes in statute and in the operation of road traffic law. Further work to implement the proposals will start as soon as possible. Specific recommendations in the North report have been drawn to the attention of the courts and the police, and consultations are being initiated with representative bodies of these organisations. Consultation will be undertaken with the local authority associations, motoring and other organisations on the detailed implementation of the proposals. Legislation will then be brought forward as soon as parliamentary time can be found.
This White Paper strengthens, modernises and clarifies road traffic law. I commend it to hon. Members on both sides of the House as a major contribution to the Government's drive to make Britain's roads safer still.

Mr. John Prescott: I welcome the White Paper and its proposals to improve our traffic law and road behaviour. I believe that it will reduce deaths from accidents, and the House and the country will welcome that.
May I offer our grateful thanks to Dr. North and his committee for their most thorough report. Whilst one would like to consider the full implications of the White Paper proposals, I am happy to endorse the broad thrust of them. Indeed, it will make the law more definitive and more uniform. The tougher penalties, with retraining and rehabilitation for drink drivers, are to be welcomed.
The Secretary of State spoke about testing, retesting and retraining. I hope that he is prepared to increase the number of staff available to deal with training and testing because major difficulties are experienced at present. Like the Government, I reject some of Dr. North's recommendations, most notably that the penalty fine for an offence should cover administrative and court costs—in a sense, privatising the costs. I accept the Government's view that the fine should represent a punishment and a deterrent and should reflect the seriousness of the offence.
Will the Secretary comment on the proposals so obviously missing from the terms of reference and which make a major contribution to reducing drink-driving accidents—random breath tests which are carried out openly by some police authorities without the express agreement of Parliament, or the necessary protection that would be imposed? Does his statement and that of the Home Secretary last week mean that their proposals will be included in a new traffic Bill? Will random breath tests be included in that Bill, and when is such a Bill likely to come forward?
In substituting the offence of reckless driving for the two offences of dangerous driving and careless driving, will the advice given by police officers in exercising that judgment he publicly available and discussed by the House and by other interested parties?
The Secretary of State mentioned the use of technology such as videos and cameras as the sole evidence for prosecution. Is he quite convinced that technically they can be relied upon to be absolutely sound? I am sure that that problem will exercise many minds.
Is the Secretary of State aware that, in extending the penalty points for speeding offences from three to six in the case of those who choose to go to court, he appears to be loading the case against citizens who exercise their right to have their cases heard in court instead of being dealt with by policemen on the spot? Is that not a penalty against one's right to pursue one's case through the courts?
The Secretary of State accepted Dr. North's rejection of the suggestion that the courts should not be burdened with compensation issues related to traffic offences. Is he considering any other ways of dealing with that distressing and vexed question that is involved when one pursues a civil action?
Finally, will the conclusions of the experiment to be carried out in Scotland in relating fines to one's ability to

pay them—that is clearly against the Government's taxation policy whereby the rich do not pay—be included in the next traffic Bill to come before the House?

Mr. Channon: I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) for his generous welcome to the thrust of the proposals. I shall try to deal with all the points that he raised, but if I omit any issues I shall be in touch with him.
In regard to random breath testing, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced only a few days ago that there would be consultation. He has asked for the consultations to be completed by 30 April. Were it to be decided that changes in the law should take place, there is no reason to assume that they could not be fitted into a new traffic Bill. As to when such a Bill will be brought forward, the hallowed answer to such requests is "As soon as parliamentary time allows." [Interruption.] I note that the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) is pressing for the Government to be speedy, and I shall convey that to my ministerial colleagues.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East referred to technology. It is absolutely essential that the technology should be reliable and accurate. Equipment will be subject to rigorous testing. I shall have to approve devices and the equipment will be regularly maintained to prescribed standards. Of course I shall not approve a device unless I am satisfied that it is accurate and reliable. Obviously the House will wish to pay very close attention to that. Provided that standards can be met, it is clear that it is no longer a game on Britain's roads and we must have the most efficient way of catching offenders in order to reduce road accidents.
I note the hon. Gentleman's views on the question of the courts and speeding and I shall consider them. He will know that the position will not be changed enormously. At present, speeding incurs a level 3 fine of £400 and a discretionary disqualification of three penalty points. All that is suggested is that the three penalty points fixed penalty should remain, but that there will be a right to go up to six in court proceedings. We shall consider the hon. Gentleman's comments in the period before there is any suggestion of legislation. I shall also consider the other points he has made and be in touch with him.

Mr. Norman Tebbit: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his White Paper will gain general acceptance and a good welcome, but that the further extension, through the use of cameras, of the principle that a motorist or a keeper of a motor vehicle can be found guilty of an offence without the same burden of proof that would be required to find him guilty of any other form of offence is becoming a little worrying and that some of us may find it difficult to agree with him on that point?

Mr. Channon: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's initial remarks. I know of the views expressed in the latter part of his remarks and that has, of course, given me some concern about whether to press ahead with the proposals. However, with 5,100 people still being killed on our roads—although our road safety figures are now the best for deaths since 1954—and 300,000 being injured, my view is that, provided we can have reliable equipment which is subject to rigorous testing and that it is used where improved enforcement can have the maximum effect on


accident reduction, it is in the public interest. There is bound to be controversy, and the House will wish to debate the matter at length.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I too welcome the terms of the White Paper in principle, especially the attempt to fill the unhappy and sometimes distressing lacuna in our law which has meant that deaths in circumstances in which drink was taken were not always possible to deal with in a way that was satisfactory not only to the relations of those killed, but to the views of the public. That provision will be warmly welcomed.
I should like the Secretary of State to deal with one point that is perhaps more directly relevant to Scotland than elsewhere. He says that the Secretary of State for Scotland must consider whether the change in legislation for England and Wales is to apply in Scotland. The substantive road traffic law has always been the same throughout the United Kingdom, and if the Secretary of State were to take the view that that should not be the case, for the first time the law in Scotland on a matter of that nature would be different from the law in England and Wales. That would be a substantial departure in principle and one to which I hope the Secretary of State will give serious consideration.

Mr. Channon: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his preliminary remarks and for what he has said about the new offence of causing death by drunken driving. The law in England and Wales is the same as the law in Scotland, but in Scotland the courts have interpreted the law in a wholly different way and there has not been the same difficulty of interpretation or the same rigorous suggestion that it depends on the state of the driver's mind. As I am advised by my Scottish colleagues, the law is working satisfactorily in Scotland. In those circumstances, they must decide whether they want to change it or to continue with the present satisfactory state of the law in Scotland. I shall convey what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said to my right hon. and learned Friend, but it is difficult to weigh up the two conflicting points.

Mr. Roger Moate: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the further evidence of the Government's determination to cut down the appalling slaughter and injuries on our roads. I assure him that the White Paper will receive widespread support in the House. Does he agree that it will depend largely on driver co-operation and that that could be jeopardised if there is widespread suspicion about the use of photographic devices for speeding offences, especially if, at the same time, drivers are discouraged from challenging the offence in court because of the deterrent effect of extra penalty points? Would my right hon. Friend look at that matter carefully? Does the White Paper include any encouragement for regular eye testing, and if not will my right hon. Friend consider that?

Mr. Channon: Driver co-operation is extremely important. It is because there has been massive co-operation between the driving public and the authorities that in the past few years the driving accident rate has been coming down significantly, which is a different position from that in many other parts of the world. At one point in the past 10 years, deaths peaked at

about 6,800 per year; they are now down to 5,100. The trend for the first three quarters of 1988 shows a further decline. There is no doubt that a combination of things, including driver co-operation, has led to that effect.
Of course, I shall consider my hon. Friend's point, but the thrust of the White Paper is that we should not penalise motorists who commit trivial offences from time to time—as I suspect many hon. Members do—but should punish those who seriously offend. I hope that the driving public does not think that this measure is designed to penalise those who make a trivial mistake from time to time.

Mr. David Marshall: The review was set up following the report on road safety by the Select Committee on Transport in 1984–85. I welcome the report and am grateful to the Secretary of State for his letter today offering to meet the Select Committee to discuss it. On behalf of the Committee, may I say that we are all looking forward to that meeting.
As hon. Member after hon. Member has emphasised, the major factor in road safety is drinking and driving. As the introduction of random breath testing would do more than anything else to combat that problem, if the Secretary of State wants to save Government time, will he give Government support to the Bill sponsored by my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson)?

Mr. Channon: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who is consulting on it. I shall put the hon. Gentleman's suggestion to him but it would be odd to accept it when one is out for consultation on that subject. I am much looking forward to meeting the Select Committee—any place, any time.

Mr. Peter Fry: I join in the general congratulations given to my right hon. Friend for seeing that those who commit serious motoring offences have a corresponding penalty. When he is considering the range of penalty points, will he ensure that a degree of flexibility is allowed to magistrates so that those who are technically guilty of an offence do not suffer the heavy penalties of those who are guilty of dangerous or reckless driving?

Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. We hope that, for small offences, there will be a greater use by the police of warnings than there has been in the past.

Mr. Alex Salmond: I join the general welcome for the Secretary of State's proposals, especially those relating to retesting as a standard penalty for many traffic offences. Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the possibilty of retesting people solely on the theory of road practice, given that most drivers do not commit offences because they are not in control of the car, but because they ignore "The Highway Code"? Retesting on the theory of "The Highway Code" as opposed to a full driving test could be introduced quickly over a whole range of driving offences, and for all but the least serious.

Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman has reminded me—the House may already know—that we are going to produce a new highway code in the not-too-distant future. The present one has been in operation for about seven years, so it is about time that we had a new one.
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's welcome for the retesting proposals. We shall introduce a new extensive driving test for certain categories of offender. Although we


shall start with those convicted of the most serious offences, we have not ruled out the idea of extending the testing later to include other categories, if that becomes justified. I shall consider what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Dame Jill Knight: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the severe problems caused by bus doors that catch limbs and clothing, dragging people along and causing nasty accidents? Is there anything in the White Paper on that, or has my right hon. Friend anything further to add? I remind him that it is now more than eight months since my constituent, Mrs. Ethel Dunne, met with precisely that type of accident which severely disabled her. Can my right hon. Friend offer any hope to my constituent and others like her?

Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will be making an announcement about this in the not-too-distant future. He is having discussions with the Bus and Coach Council on that point. I believe I am right in saying that that matter is more relevant to the debate that follows, hut, generally, the number of accidents involving buses is going down rather than up. My hon. Friend has raised an important constituency case and my hon. Friend will contact her about it.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have on obligation to . take account of the motions on the Order Paper. There is to be a debate on transport in which these matters could be raised. I shall allow questions to continue for a further 15 minues, but then we must move on.

Dr. Lewis Moonie: I wholeheartedly welcome the proposals in the White Paper and , therefore, I am sorry to have to introduce a slightly discordant note. I am surprised that there is not recognition in the Minister's statement of the European Commission's suggestion that blood alcohol levels should be reduced from a maximum of 80 to 50. Would the Minister give that serious consideration when he brings forward legislation?

Mr. Channon: Of course, if the Commission proposes such a limit—which I believe it is considering—we shall have to give it serious consideration. However, I would very much like this House to express a view about that suggestion rather than accept blindly what the Commission wants. I am not necessarily opposed to it, but—

Mr. Peter Snape: The right hon. Gentleman must be unique among Ministers.

Mr. Channon: Not at all. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister expresses her views with considerable robustness.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: Has my right hon. Friend considered making stronger the rules regarding lane discipline? If not, will he consider that matter when redrawing the rules of the road?

Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend has put his finger on an important point. Lane discipline in this country is not nearly satisfactory enough, especially when compared with that in many other countries. It is largely a problem of the education and the training of drivers, and I fear that it will take years to change that position. We are, of course,

examining what can be done about it, but it is by no means easy to give a direct answer. I shall be in touch with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Frank Cook: The Secretary of State has referred to the retraining of offenders after the event, which is most commendable. However, does he agree that perhaps it is just as advisable to improve the standards of motoring before the event? Does he not commend the work of such organisations as the Institute of Advanced Motorists and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents? Could he not further encourage their work by encouraging more insurance companies to offer motorists reduced premiums for the acquisition of an advanced motoring award?

Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman has made a good point. I certainly commend the Institute of Advanced Motorists and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents for their excellent work not only in this but in other areas. The hon. Gentleman's point about insurance companies and their premiums is correct. We are in contact with insurance companies about a range of road safety matters. They are doing their best to help in this area, especially General Accident, to give but one example.
I believe that retraining will be welcomed by the House, but it is important to cut down road casualties generally. As I have said, the number of road casualties is on a downward trend—the situation is better here than anywhere else in the Community—but it is still far too high. I do not wish to sound complacent, because I am not. I am determined to reduce the number further. We must, however, set the results in their context. Quite a lot has been done about improving driving standards already.

Mr. Iain Mills: Will my right hon. Friend accept my congratulations on this major step forward in road safety? The introduction of a new dangerous driving offence, the penalties that he is proposing for drink driving and especially—this has not been mentioned so far—the penalties for failure to stop will be excellent in creating a better road safety environment. However, will he accept my strong recommendation that he should reconsider—I say this after 20 years in the lyre industry—more sensible and sane tyre tread depth legislation which would save lives by giving cars a better grip of the roads?

Mr. Channon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his initial remarks. Driving with illegal tyres is already an offence. We are always happy to consider research evidence on what the legal tyre tread depth should be. I know that my hon. Friend has strong views about the matter. We shall continue examining tyre tread depth in the light of the evidence produced to us.

Mr. Roy Beggs: I, too, congratulate the Secretary of State on the proposal that he has brought forward today and welcome the Government's commitment to reducing the number of accidents, injuries and deaths on our roads and their determination to tackle drunken driving. Northern Ireland has had breath testing for a long time. It is accepted and it is proving effective in dissuading people from drinking and driving. However, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to discuss with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how at the same time we in Northern Ireland can benefit from the new proposals?

Mr. Channon: I shall do as the hon. Gentleman suggests. It is not a matter for me, but I shall discuss with my right hon. Friend the hon. Gentleman's wish to have many of the provisions incorporated in Northern Ireland legislation.

Sir Dudley Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the public have long felt that we have not been nearly harsh enough with serious offenders, such as the drunken drivers who kill and those who drive without insurance or after disqualification, and that far less serious offenders are often penalised unreasonably? Will my right hon. Friend assure me that the proposals are not too draconian for the average driver, the person who is human who commits an offence occasionally but who by and large is a good citizen on the roads?

Mr. Channon: Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. The general thrust of the White Paper and Dr. North's proposals is that the bad driver should be punished more severely while the driver who makes the odd mistake should, if anything, receive more warnings than he does at present. We are talking about a comparatively small number of offences caused by bad drivers. From memory, there were about 8·9 million motoring offences in 1987, the latest year for which we have figures, and of those only 30,000 were tried on indictment, which must have been the most serious cases. That is a small proportion of the generality of motoring offences, but my hon. Friend is right.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Is the Secretary of State aware that there are varying views on the advisability of introducing random breath testing, thus extending the powers of the police? Would it not be far better to reduce the blood alcohol level and to introduce a system of disqualification for five years for the first offence, with no chance of having one's licence returned early, and disqualification for life for the second offence, with no chance of one's licence being returned? Will the right hon. Gentleman give further consideration to his decision to introduce three new offences for which a term of imprisonment is to be considered? It does not make sense to have a term of imprisonment of five years for an offence for which the term of disqualification is only two years. Those two do not go together and the Secretary of State has not thought that out properly.

Mr. Channon: With respect, I have thought the matter out, and, more importantly, so has Dr. North. The White Paper gives the maximum term of imprisonment, not the length that the courts will usually impose. This applies only to the worst cases. The obligatory disqualification for causing death by dangerous driving will be a minimum of two years and could be more. That is merely expressed in a different way. The hon. Gentleman need not be worried that there is any inconsistency. I am only too well aware that there are differing views on random testing, and it will be interesting to see the result of the consultations. The House and the Government will soon have to take a view on the blood alcohol level.

Mr. John Wheeler: My right hon. Friend's proposals are welcome, but will he re-emphasise the importance of not allowing the law to become too bureaucratic, thus alienating the citizen? Will he, alongside

the proposals, further encourage the motor manufacturers to produce vehicles that are not only crime proof but have safety features to prevent road accidents?

Mr. Channon: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said, and I shall take it very much to heart.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: Does the Secretary of State accept that the use of good quality, accurate cameras to catch those who cause carnage on the road is as justifiable as their use in catching people who rob banks? What is the estimated cost to the economy of the 100 deaths a week on the road? It must run to millions of pounds. Could the money that is saved be used for a large scale programme of small engineering works at road junctions?

Mr. Channon: I do not have the exact figure—

Mr. Prescott: Half a million pounds.

Mr. Channon: That is the estimated cost, but in fact the costs are far higher than that. The estimated cost is £500,000 per death. If the hon. Gentleman cares to multiply that by 5,125 he will quickly get the answer. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support on the question of cameras. He shares my view, and I hope that that will be accepted by the House.

Mr. Alan Amos: Would my right hon. Friend comment on the growing menace of so-called couriers, particularly in London, who weave in and out of the
traffic, appearing to consider themselves above the law? How effective will my right hon. Friend's proposals be in dealing with them?

Mr. Channon: Couriers are subject to the law just as much as anybody else, and if they are caught by the police breaking the law they can be prosecuted in the same way as any other driver. I am not sure whether there are any additional proposals, but if my hon. Friend has any ideas, we shall certainly consider them.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I support the broad thrust of the proposals, but may I enter a caveat? If cameras are placed on motorways while we have a 70 mph limit there will be severe bunching of vehicles. If cameras are to go on motorways, that limit should be increased to 80 mph because of the danger of many additional accidents.

Mr. Channon: I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. If we were to increase the speed limit to 80 mph it would increase the number of deaths on the motorways and the bunching would just occur at the higher figure. Cameras on motorways would be particularly useful at contraflows where there is twice as much danger as where the motorway is clear and where it is important that people should obey the limits. Most cameras will be used at places such as red lights in cities where the maximum effect can be obtained.

Sir Philip Goodhart: My right hon. Friend suggests that the introduction of the new camera speed guns can save hundreds of lives a year. Will he give us an assurance that he will try to have that new technology in widespread use in Britain within two years?

Mr. Channon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. We shall do the best we can, but I have still to convince other hon. Members to accept it and that I shall try to do.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Home Office consultation on random breath testing offers two extreme options—either the status quo, or to go the whole hog and for the police to have unfettered discretion to stop and breathalyse anyone at any time? Will he consider the provisions of the private Member's Bill that I shall be introducing on 24 February which would enable the Secretary of State for Transport to make regulations which would provide for the principle of random checks, properly regulated in a way that would deter drunken driving while protecting civil liberties?

Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman's Bill is primarily a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and, as I said earlier, I shall draw his attention to the remarks that have been made today. However, my right hon. Friend is seeking to carry out a genuine consultation process and that will not be over until the end of April. It is difficult to expect the Government to come to a conclusion before the consultation period is over. However, I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to my right hon. Friend's attention.

Sir Anthony Grant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will be particularly welcome to the Guild of Experienced Motorists, of which I have the honour to be president, which has urged for some time the implementation of the North report? I welcome any attempt to crack down on the drunken motorist, but will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that four out of five accidents are caused not by drink but by motorists driving too fast too close behind another vehicle? Some of the worst offenders are the heavy goods vehicle drivers whose conduct on the MI1 and M25 in the fog earlier this year was nothing short of scandalous. Will my right hon. Friend's proposals do something to rectify that menace?

Mr. Channon: I agree with much of what my hon. Friend has said. One in five accidents which we believe are

caused by drunken driving is a high proportion and is equivalent to about 1,000 people being killed annually, and we are trying to do something about that.
I shall keep the problem of heavy goods vehicles closely under review. Their safety record has been getting better, but I shall none the less examine what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Richard Holt: What my right hon. Friend says is widely accepted, but why does he set his face against revising the basic driving test, and why is a secondary test not implemented particularly for towing caravans and horse boxes, where the number of accidents is increasing, to ensure that those who take these lethal weapons on the roads are competent to do so?

Mr. Channon: I assure my hon. Friend that we have not closed our minds to reviewing the contents of the driving test, and we shall keep the matter constantly under review. Suggestions that come, alas, once again from the European Community may insist on harmonisation requirements. We shall have to consider that. I assure my hon. Friend that we shall keep all the components of the driving test under review and change it if necessary.

Mr. David Martin: I am sure that the general reaction to my right hon. Friend's announcement about the taking of stricter measures against those who kill when drunk will be "About time too", but will my right hon. Friend confirm that, in addition to a longer period of disqualification, there will be a requirement for a test to be taken again before those people ever drive again?

Mr. Channon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. We shall have retesting of those who have committed the worst offences, and we are considering extending retesting further. Certainly the purpose will be to retest those who are convicted of very bad driving offences. I think that that will be generally welcomed. A longer and more extensive driving test will not be altogether easy to pass.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I shall bear in mind the four hon. Members I have not been able to call when the matter is discussed again.

Points of Order

Mr. Alan Meale: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you know, I asked question No. 12 during today''s Question Time, but, because of the noise from the Conservative Benches behind the Minister, the Secretary of State for Transport was unable to hear my supplementary question. May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, through your good offices, to inquire of the Minister whether he would give me an answer to my supplementary question? I also wish to raise with you, knowing that you have such a difficult job, especially at Prime Minister's Question Time, the question whether Conservative Members should refrain from defending their Ministers and instead be more concerned about the defence of the nation.

Mr. Richard Holt: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Opposition Members must not complain if they fail to put their questions in the proper way and have to read them.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Let us have a bit of balance here. The hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) put a question to the Secretary of State for Transport and everybody on this side of the House heard him read the question. Nobody stopped him or cared too much about it. However, in the hurly-burly of Question Time, just before the Prime Minister answered questions, my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) was subjected to abuse. Quite frankly, the rule ought to be the same for everybody.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who is always helpful, has drawn attention to an important matter. It is not in order for hon. Members to read their questions. It is a practice that causes hon. Members on both sides of the House to challenge hon. Members who do so. I cannot help the hon. Gentleman further. The hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) was not reading his question, but was referring to notes.

Mr. Meale: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I understand the rules of the House, it is in order to use copious notes during the course of a debate. I was using copious notes because I wished to put a specific and technical question to the Minister.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is in order to use notes—although I hope not too copious notes—in debates, but not at Question Time.

Mr. James Hill: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During the exchanges on the important matter of transportation you said that those who were unfortunate enough not to be called would be able to take part in the debate immediately following questions. Is that at all possible, Mr. Speaker, or was that a way of saying, "Do not keep persevering; you may or may not be called during the later debate"?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not read too much into these signals. I said that the content of the statement would be a subject for the next debate.

Postal Privilege (Amendment)

Mr. John Bowis: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to remove the exclusivity of the postal privilege.
My Bill would amend the British Telecommunications Act 1981 by deleting the clauses that give the Post Office the exclusive privilege of conveying letters. It would provide for the licensing of firms that sought to offer an alternative postal service to the public and thus would bring letters into line with parcels.
There has already been a step in this direction with the suspension of the exclusivity until 2006 of items costing £1 or more. But, frankly, this is not much of an incentive for firms to provide an alternative service; nor is it much of an incentive for the public to use it.
I put the Bill forward in a spirit which is in no sense doctrinaire, unless it is doctrinaire to believe in providing a better service for the public. However, I do put it forward by way of representing the frustration, disappointment and anger of many of my constituents. For them, in common with many other residents of south-west London, the Post Office has signally and abysmally failed to provide a service that comes anywhere near its boasts this Christmas. Indeed, Christmas cards and letters are still trickling through to their destinations.
Nevertheless, let me say that I am conscious of the many postal workers and managers who work hard at their job, day in and day out, come rain, come shine, in London and in the even more physically demanding areas of remoter Britain. Nothing in my Bill threatens those who work hard for the Post Office. Indeed, it will help those within the Post Office who want to provide a better service to the public. The only people who will be threatened will be those who seek to use their monopoly position to hide their inability to cope with competition. I have to say that I am a little surprised that the Post Office management should be so panicked by this proposal as to put on a rather partisan political hat in its six pages of selective quotations and wishful thinking that were sent to hon. Members as a briefing for this debate.
In recent years the Post Office has sometimes appeared to make some improvements but its dramatic claims have never seemed to add up to the less than well-served public. The reality is that in the 1980s the Post Office repaired some of the declining service of the 1970s, but that is all it has done. Many of its claims are achieved by either an extraordinary ability to move the goal posts or by a degree of optimism that would have put Mr. Micawber in the shade.
Indeed, Mr. Micawber's experience of expecting something to turn up is not a bad analogy for the Post Office. First class mail is supposed to be delivered the next day. The Post Office regularly claims that 90 per cent. does so turn up. The Post Office Users National Council, on the other hand, showed in its 1987 surveys that less than two thirds of first class mail arrived on the following day. That, I think, matches much more nearly the public's perception of the service; Micawber-like, some 35 per cent. of letters are waiting to turn up.
Where second class mail is concerned, the only thing that seems to move with any sense of urgency is the goal posts. I suspect that most people think that second class mail is supposed to be delivered on the second day after


posting, but that was changed in 1975 to the third day after posting, and then in 1978 to the third day after collection. Each time the target was relaxed a surprised and bemused British people was informed that its service was getting better.
The reality is that the Post Office needs the spur of competition, and the consumer needs the safety net of an available alternative. It worked with parcels and it can work with letters.
Before competition arrived, Post Office parcels regularly made a loss, but since then it has regularly made a profit—and so have its competitors. If the Post Office gets its act together, with its long experience it should have a reasonable chance of seeing off the competition. If it does so, it will be because it provides a service that meets the public's needs and expectations. If the Post Office does not meet those needs it will see at least some of its business lost to its competitors.
The question of rural postal services must be considered to see whether they should be protected by legislation. One can argue that dwellers in rural areas do not subsidise the cost of higher house prices in urban areas and therefore—swings and roundabouts—there is no need for urban dwellers to subsidise rural postal services. However, I am not saying that. One could also examine other social needs, which we seem able to provide without a monopoly of supply. We do not require a monopoly to ensure, for example, that milk or newspapers are delivered in rural areas. Our practice is rather to identify a need and then to think about helping the needy to meet its cost. We could subsidise rural posts courtesy of the taxpayer, but I do not propose that either. I am very much aware of the potential for endless arguments as to what can be classified as a rural area—and anomalies will abound.
My preference is for the proposals in the London School of Economic's report for a levy of 5p, say, on every item carried by an independent firm, which would be paid to the Post Office as a specific contribution to its costs in providing a service to remote areas. Such an arrangement would remove the creaming off arguments and the last justification for a monopoly. We would then have a fair and competitive service, with all the excuses for a monopoly removed.
The Socialist French Government have just announced a comparable measure, which will allow free competition in the collection and delivery of letters. I cannot believe that that is right for France but not for our country. If we do not like our butcher, we can shop around. If we do not like our doctor, we can hunt for another. Food and health are two basic needs and services where there is competition—but if we do not like our postal service, and unless we are rich enough to pay £1 per letter, we must lump it.
I call in aid of my arguments the views of a man who advocated abolition of the Post Office monopoly many years ago. He said of such a proposal:
It implies the removal of an offence from our Statute Book and the probable rise of a wholesome competition wherever the service is performed with less than the greatest efficiency and cheapness.
That advocate was Rowland Hill—the father of the penny post. As we approach the 150th anniversary of the penny post, perhaps the House will salute Rowland Hill's memory by heeding his advice and supporting the Bill.

Mr. Harry Ewing: I wish to oppose the Bill proposed by the hon. Member for Battersea (M r. Bowis). I must declare my interest in postal matters, because I am a Member of Parliament sponsored by the Union of Communication Workers. There is no question of financial gain to myself, but I have spent a great many years in the posts and telecommunications industry.
I have some sympathy with the hon. Member for Battersea in presenting a Bill of the type that he has on this day of all days, when, during Prime Minister's Questions, the right hon. Lady struggled like mad to justify increased water charges by private water companies resulting from privatisation of the water industry. That example of something that could also happen in the postal service was eloquently cited today by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, and is there for all to see.
With respect to the hon. Member for Battersea, I have never heard such patronising remarks about people living in rural areas. His right hon. and hon. Friends representing constituencies in Cornwall, Devon, the Highlands and Islands and in other rural and remote areas will not accept the patronising argument that private carriers should collect 5p per item to subsidise mail deliveries in rural areas of England, Wales and Scotland, but will see it for what it is worth.
As to the proposal itself, the Post Office is not afraid of competition. The parcels sector already has it, and it is very successful. Also, the trade union idea of Girobank has provided competition in the banking sector for several years. It has been so successful that the Government now want to move Girobank out of the public and into the private banking sector. Neither those who work in the Post Office nor those who manage it are afraid of competition.
With the exclusivity that the Post Office enjoys there also goes responsibility. The hon. Member for Battersea obviously does not understand that that responsibility is to deliver letters and other mail to every part of the country at the same price. If exclusivity is removed, the hon. Gentleman, as a former researcher at Conservative Central Office, must know that the cost of sending a letter to the outer islands of Scotland, Cornwall or Devon will be about £1·50, compared with the 19p charge for first class mail that is currently made.
The hon. Gentleman's proposals would also place at risk the future of rural sub-post offices, which are inextricably linked with the postal delivery service. They stock the stamps, cash and all the other items that are required for a rural sub-office to function. It is the postman who delivers those items, and, as sure as night follows day, rural sub-offices would close under the system that the hon. Gentleman proposes. That is why his hon. Friend's Bill was defeated last year, arid why the hon. Gentleman's Bill will also be defeated. If he does not understand, as a Member of Parliament representing an inner-city constituency, the obligations that the Post Office has, and must discharge, to people living in remote areas, his right hon. and hon. Friends representing rural constituencies must do so.
I went through the 1971 postal strike, which started on 20 January and continued until 11 March that year. During that strike, private letter carriers were established, particularly in the Manchester area. They charged 2s 6d. per item, which at today's values is equivalent to £2. When the strike ended, nearly every one of the items for which


private carriers had charged the equivalent of ·2 each to deliver were put into the postal system with a cheap first class stamp on them for the postmen whom the hon. Member for Battersea criticises to deliver. There was no question of private companies being able to deliver that mail. It was absorbed into the postal service for the Post Office to deliver.
We have seen this hardy annual appear for the past two or three years. I ask that, in the time-honoured tradition, this hardy annual also should be buried at the end of its season. I oppose the Bill.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and Nomination of Select Committees at Commencement of Public Business):—

The House divided: Ayes 100, Noes 174.

Division No. 78]
[4.28 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Jessel, Toby


Alexander, Richard
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Aspinwall, Jack
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Atkinson, David
Kilfedder, James


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Knapman, Roger


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Beggs, Roy
Lawrence, Ivan


Bendall, Vivian
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Bevan, David Gilroy
McCrindle, Robert


Body, Sir Richard
Mans, Keith


Boswell, Tim
Marlow, Tony


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Bowis, John
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Mates, Michael


Brazier, Julian
Moate, Roger


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Browne, John (Winchester)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Moss, Malcolm


Budgen, Nicholas
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Burns, Simon
Norris, Steve


Carrington, Matthew
Pawsey, James


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Cran, James
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Dicks, Terry
Redwood, John


Evennett, David
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Rost, Peter


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Shaw, David (Dover)


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Shelton, Sir William (Str'm)


Fishburn, John Dudley
Sims, Roger


Fookes, Dame Janet
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Franks, Cecil
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Fry, Peter
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Summerson, Hugo


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Tredinnick, David


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Grylls, Michael
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Warren, Kenneth


Hannam, John
Watts, John


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Wheeler, John


Hayes, Jerry
Whitney, Ray


Hill, James
Wilshire, David


Holt, Richard
Woodcock, Mike


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)



Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Irvine, Michael
Miss Ann Widdecombe and


Janman, Tim
Mr. Graham Riddick.





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Allen, Graham
Howells, Geraint


Anderson, Donald
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Armstrong, Hilary
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Ashton, Joe
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Illsley, Eric


Barron, Kevin
Ingram, Adam


Battle, John
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Beckett, Margaret
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Beith, A. J.
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Lambie, David


Blair, Tony
Lamond, James


Blunkett, David
Leadbitter, Ted


Boyes, Roland
Leighton, Ron


Bradley, Keith
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Litherland, Robert


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Livsey, Richard


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Buckley, George J.
Loyden, Eddie


Caborn, Richard
McAvoy, Thomas


Callaghan, Jim
McCartney, Ian


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
McFall, John


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
McKelvey, William


Canavan, Dennis
McNamara, Kevin


Cartwright, John
McTaggart, Bob


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
McWilliam, John


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Madden, Max


Clay, Bob
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Marek, Dr John


Cohen, Harry
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Coleman, Donald
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Corbett, Robin
Maxton, John


Cox, Tom
Meale, Alan


Cryer, Bob
Michael, Alun


Cummings, John
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'I &amp; Bute)


Darling, Alistair
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Morgan, Rhodri


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Dewar, Donald
Mudd, David


Dixon, Don
Mullin, Chris


Doran, Frank
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Duffy, A. E. P.
O'Brien, William


Dunnachie, Jimmy
O'Neill, Martin


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Eadie, Alexander
Parry, Robert


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Patchett, Terry


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Pendry, Tom


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Fatchett, Derek
Prescott, John


Faulds, Andrew
Radice, Giles


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Redmond, Martin


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Flannery, Martin
Richardson, Jo


Flynn, Paul
Robertson, George


Foster, Derek
Rooker, Jeff


Fyfe, Maria
Rowlands, Ted


Galbraith, Sam
Ruddock, Joan


Galloway, George
Salmond, Alex


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Sedgemore, Brian


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Gould, Bryan
Short, Clare


Graham, Thomas
Skinner, Dennis


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Grocott, Bruce
Snape, Peter


Hardy, Peter
Spearing, Nigel


Haynes, Frank
Steel, Rt Hon David


Heffer, Eric S.
Steinberg, Gerry


Henderson, Doug
Stott, Roger


Hinchliffe, David
Strang, Gavin


Holland, Stuart
Straw, Jack


Home Robertson, John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)






Turner, Dennis
Wilson, Brian


Vaz, Keith
Winnick, David


Wall, Pat
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Wallace, James
Worthington, Tony


Waller, Gary
Wray, Jimmy


Walley, Joan
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Wareing, Robert N.



Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)
Tellers for the Noes:


Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)
Mr. Harry Barnes and


Wigley, Dafydd
Mr. Dave Nellist.

Question accordingly negatived.

Opposition Day

[4TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Transport

Mr. John Prescott: I beg to move,
That this House expresses its deep concern at the transport tragedies of the last two years of the 'Herald of Free Enterprise', King's Cross, Clapham, Lockerbie and the M1 air disaster; condemns the Government's failure to invest in an integrated transport policy, which has created an unprecedented level of congestion in all modes of transport, has increased fare levels and produced a poorer quality of service in public passenger transport, has reduced safety standards and heightened concern for personal security, especially amongst women; calls for an urgent inquiry into the Government's failure to ensure either that the nation is able to take full advantage of the economic and social benefits of the Channel Tunnel or that environmental concerns are protected; and believes that the Government's policies of deregulation, privatisation and reduced public spending have met Treasury requirements but have also produced one of the worst transport systems of any developed economy, placing an ever increasing burden on both British industry and the travelling public who feel less secure and pay more for a poorer service, and that these problems have been worsened by a Department of Transport that does not believe in a public transport system and is inept in administering its responsibilities.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Before we begin the debate, I must announce to the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Prescott: Transport debates like today's are normally called by the Opposition because the Government have provided no time for them. The making of the White Paper statement today was, I believe, a parliamentary tactic, reducing the time available to discuss the Government's record. I admit that such tactics are not unique to Tory Governments : Labour Governments have been known to do the same. Both parties, in such circumstances, do not wish to debate the issue that is to follow—in the present instance, the Government's record on transport. Again, the Government are attempting in their amendment to the motion to blame their Labour predecessors—after 10 years in office.
As well as the White Paper, our motion has produced a number of measures. The London Underground has responded to the Fennell report on underground safety. It was announced today that a freight integration centre is to be built in the Yorkshire-Humberside area in connection with the Channel tunnel, and I was told on the telephone last night of a new initiative by the Secretary of State to bring in yellow stickers advising air passengers of the part that they can play in improving safety. We can at least say that we have contributed to obtaining more information from the Government for today's debate.
Perhaps the most astounding development has been the report in The Independent today that tolls are to be introduced, despite the claim by the Secretary of State at Question Time that he did not believe in them. That may still be the case, but The Independent seemed very sure of


its sources, and reported that he had been calling loudly in Cabinet for the return of private financing. Perhaps we shall learn his true stance this afternoon.
Our motion reflects the sad decline in what was once recognised worldwide as a good integrated public transport system, implemented by various Governments. Today we have increasing congestion, increasing fare levels and increasing violence, against the background of a reduction in quality and choice and lower safety standards. After 10 years of Tory ideology, a commitment to privatisation, competition, deregulation and massive cuts in public financial support have produced nightmare travel conditions and increasing insecurity in cars, trains, buses and planes. A decade of Tory rule and Tory policies has produced what last night's "World in Action" programme described as a national scandal. I think that anyone using public transport today will identify with that term, and with the description of the London transport system as a European black spot.
Unfortunately, we can only expect the position to worsen, despite all the Secretary of State's rhetoric and the plans that he has announced over the past couple of weeks. Certainly the possibility of Cabinet changes concentrates the minds and statements of various Secretaries of State. [Interruption.] If we are to accept that what the Secretary of State does is associated with his future, I am bound to say that he is more concerned for that future than for the travelling public.
Even if the Government's rhetoric and promises are accepted, their proposals will not deal with the growth in the transport system that we anticipate by the end of the century. It is predicted that the number of cars will increase by at least 25 per cent., lorry movements by 15 per cent. and London peak demand by 20 per cent. All the proposals in the central London rail study will at most deal with the growth—I do not believe that they will meet the new demands—leaving us with our present levels of congestion, even if promises materialise as resources.
The daily experiences of most people as revealed on television and in newspapers does not coincide with the views expressed in the Government's amendment. Nor can we accept that the Labour Government, who have been out of office for 10 years, can be blamed for the transport mess that the Government claim they created. In the rail industry, demand since 1979 has increased by 20 per cent. and the number of seats has been reduced by 13 per cent. That inevitably means congestion.
The claim that passengers will not have to stand for journeys lasting for more than 20 minutes in the south-east, the inner city or the provinces is a national joke. Even the buses are less used, less reliable, less accessible—as minibuses—slower, dirtier, older and clog up bus lanes. That leads to some increases and redundancies. Inner-city car movement has declined from 25 mph under a Labour Government to speeds of 8 mph and 12 mph under the Tory Government. The Prime Minister promised us Victorian standards, and now we have them. We are moving as fast as the horse and cart of 100 years ago. When the Prime Minister said that she intended to put Britain back on its feet, I did not know that she meant that we would be walking because that was faster than using public transport in the inner cities.
That is a humorous interpretation, but when inner London is so clogged that no one can be guaranteed an immediate response from the ambulance or the fire engine, a dangerous situation is developing. It is all very well for the Secretary of State or his Ministers to say on television that students are causing traffic jams, as though such incidents were unique. Super-jams are becoming a regular feature of inner-city movement in London and other parts of the country.
It is laughable for the Secretary of State to tell the House that he has discovered a new solution, a new technical toy—the autoguide. We must all fit it on to our cars and ask where is the empty road to which we are to be diverted when our route is congested. I know of no roads that are free of congestion around London, and anyone who drives a car will have the same experience.
It is noticeable that more people are travelling on foot, and the increase in deaths and accidents among pedestrians is worrying—although the improvements in other kinds of accident figures are welcome. Our motorways and main roads are massively congested. A report from the Civil Aviation Authority this week tells us that by the end of the century congestion and rationing of flights from Heathrow is likely unless immediate investment is made in airports and new runways.
In the British Rail system we see the Government's prejudice against any form of public transport. Tragedies such as the Clapham junction crash show that investment in the railways is inadequate. The Government's amendment claims that investment is at record levels and contrasts it with that under the last Labour Government —[Interruption.] I refer the Minister for Roads and Traffic to the evidence given to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission inquiry into the rail system. He seems to be disowning the remark, and indeed it is not true. The report states that the average investment under a Labour Government, given 1985–86 prices, was £518 million a year, while under the Tories it has been £421 million a year. It simply is not true that the real investment in British Rail is higher under a Tory Government. It is another Tory lie.
Consider the resources available for British Rail, via the public service obligation grant. In 1983 it was running at £1 billion. It is now being reduced in real terms, at 1988 prices, to £800 million.
I see the Minister for Roads and Traffic gesticulating. I do not understand what he is trying to tell me and I will willingly give way if he wishes to intervene. We have got used to his rhetoric, but unfortunately he never backs up his statements with facts. I shall continue to give him the facts.
The public service obligation grant at 1988–89 price levels was running at over £1 billion. That will now be reduced to £800 million in 1986–87 terms. The Government have thereby saved £270 million. That represents a cut of 25 per cent. The Government are now requiring the grant to be cut further, saving another £200 million, or 25 per cent., by 1988–90. The grant is to be slashed to £470 million by 1990–92.
The Government have saved that sum in their public service obligation grant to the British Rail system. It means that almost £3 billion has been lost by BR in financial support. In other words, while the Government have withdrawn that huge amount from the BR system, fare levels have been increasing, and we shall see fares


increase well above inflation levels in the coming five or six years. Perhaps the Secretary of State will say, when he replies to the debate, how he sees the future of fares.
We have also witnessed a poorer quality of service, with overcrowding, poor arrival times, declining cleanliness and maintenance and longer ticket waiting times. All have deteriorated, yet all are measures of the quality of service.
I received a letter from a passenger who uses a route on the central Kent rail network system. Her letter complained about the deterioration in the quality of service. She informed me that the letter had also been sent to the Secretary of State. The right hon. Gentleman did not reply; somebody in his Office answered the letter and told the writer to complain to the central rail consultative committee. The lady then complained to that committee. Will the Secretary of State explain what difference such a complaint can make, when the central rail consultative committee said in its last report:
The committee was unanimous in the view that the quality of British Rail services had been adversely affected by the reduction in subsidy and … senior BR staff often cited this as a reason for cuts in service quality."?
Here the central body dealing with consumer complaints is making precisely the point that, because the Government have reduced the level of support for BR, there has been a decrease in the quality of service. Indeed, my hon. Friends and I believe that that reduction in resources has had an effect on overall safety provision.
At the time of the Clapham tragedy I pointed out that the number of collisions on BR between 1982 and 1987 had increased considerably, that serious collisions were up by 18 per cent., that serious injuries and deaths had increased by 30 per cent. and that derailments had gone up by 5 per cent. My statement at that time was derided by the Secretary of State, who in a later parliamentary reply confirmed the statistics that I gave. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will now retract what he said on that earlier occasion. It is clear that there is increasing concern about safety.
In personal security terms, the number of assaults and crimes of violence on the British Rail system and on the Underground have been increasing alarmingly. Hence the need for the Guardian Angels, who are arriving. Now the Government are rushing to bring in more police, an action that they should have taken from the beginning instead of deliberately keeping their numbers at a low level.
Perhaps the Secretary of State will comment on a BR report which received publicity in the Evening Standard recently. That newspaper spoke of a secret report produced by BR dealing with the fear felt by women when travelling on city trains and the fact that the report would not be published. Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that such evidence should be published and debated so that we may have a proper assessment of safety and security on BR?
The Opposition view is that more public resources must be put into the system if we are to improve the quality of service. Indeed, looking at the issue from a European point of view, instead of the £800 million in public support that we have at present, the figure—if we pitch it at the same level as that operating in France and Germany—should be £2 billion. That shows the sort of public resources given to the transport systems of other European countries.
The Government's solution is to privatise everything, including British Rail, by the 1990s. With that in mind, BR has embarked on a policy, as with all privatisations, of

creating surpluses and cutting costs. It is achieving that by selling assets and property, thereby receiving hundreds of millions of pounds; it is reducing costs by sacking tens of thousands of workers; and it is proposing to reduce the extent of the network, as we see with the Carlisle-Settle railway and the bus substitution possibilities. At the end of the day the consumer is worse off, the Treasury is better off and the railways are not able to do anything to relieve the congestion on the roads.
On London Underground it is the same old story, and King's Cross reminds us of the tragedy in the industry. The Government claim that no investment proposals have been turned down. I am reminded of the question in the Fennell report, when the manager was asked why he had not put forward proposals to change wooden escalators for metal ones. His reply was that, despite requests that had been made and recommendations in previous fire reports, the financial climate was such that there was no point in putting forward such a proposal.
That is precisely the dilemma of BR in relation to Government investment today. It is another reason why Fennell greatly underestimated the contribution that the reduction in resources had made to safety standards and the quality of service on the Underground system.
Parliament is supposed to debate the London transport system since the Government nationalised it and took it away from the GLC. It is our task to debate the interests of Londoners. When will the Secretary of State provide time for us to debate the Fennell report and its conclusions? It is crucial that we debate the major considerations on safety and security that arise from that report.
The congestion that is clearly visible in the whole system is relevant to the situation on the Underground. It is an over-priced system where the passenger has no choice. It is under-invested and less safe. I welcome the Government's proposals to bring in more police, but I must remind them that the Ministries involved and London Underground put a moratorium on the recruitment of police. That is why the level is low now. The Department has simply brought it up to the established level.
That has happened since the accident and the increasing number of violent crimes. Unfortunately, it is always after the event that the Government take action. The same has applied to the reduction in the number of inspectors in the shipping and aviation industries. Their numbers were reduced, and as soon as a tragedy occurred the Government lifted the recruitment embargo and the establishment levels were achieved.

Mr. Robert Adley: rose—

Mr. Prescott: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. He is always writing to the Leader of the Opposition complaining about me. Perhaps Conservative Members are taught to take that sort of action in public school—writing letters instead of having it out verbally across the Floor of the House.
In terms of the level of Government grant, the Underground system expressed pleasure at being able to repay to the Government £100 million, as a reduction in the taxpayers' contribution, not in the two years over which the Government asked for the money back but within one year. The irony is that the first year's expenditure recommended by Fennell on all the safety


proposals recommended before the Kings Cross accident is equivalent to the £100 million taken from London Underground and now being returned to it by the Government.
Will the Secretary of State make it clear tonight that the other £200 million will be made available so that the system can comply with necessary safety commitments? London Underground made it clear in its statement last Monday that the Government had said that they would provide the necessary funds for that purpose. That money must be provided because safety should have the highest priority in any public transport system. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will make that clear, because there is increasing concern about escalator breakdowns—one in four is no longer working—about the fact that there has been a considerable increase in the number of fires, even since the King's Cross tragedy, and that people feel that ticket barriers will make it more difficult for them to get out of the system.
London Underground is taking many of these measures because it wants to save on staff. By reducing staff numbers by 1,200, costs can be reduced—and this at a time when the visibility of staff, including ticket collectors and police, contributes to greater security. It is no surprise that we have the Guardian Angels.
The Government set great store by, and have great faith in, the roads system. They identify that as an expression of freedom. The Secretary of State, in a speech to the Tory party conference—his remarks were published in the Conservative Newsline—said:
So good roads bring increased personal mobility and increased personal freedom—two Conservative ideals
One would think that the Secretary of State would want to give greater priority to roads. He said in the same speech that Government spending was
50 per cent. higher in real terms than under the last Labour administration.
That is not true. I asked the Secretary of State and his answer can be found in the parliamentary written answers —[Interruption.] It was a question put to the Secretary of State to find out what proportion, in real terms, had been spent on roads. The reality is that 10 per cent. more was spent on roads under the Labour Government than under the Conservative Government. If the Secretary of State wants the figures confirmed, he should look at the reply that he gave me.
Our road system is about a third of the size of that in France or Germany, and we have a programme to increase the road network by 200 miles of motorway by the end of the century. Germany and France, by contrast, plan an extra 2,000 million miles of road. If the Government's argument is that they cannot afford—

Mr. Jacques Arnold: The figure is 2,000 miles.

Mr. Prescott: I accept the correction.
Let us consider the argument that we cannot afford to improve our road network. We must bear in mind that we have a lower car ownership than elsewhere in Europe, that the M25—designed for 80,000 vehicles—now carries 130,000, and that the M6 and the M1 have become virtual car parks. The National Audit Office is critical of the way that the Department of Transport deals with planning our road systems.
No Government have ever used all the money raised through road transport taxes such as petrol, car vehicle or lorry tax. In 1979, £7 billion was raised from transport taxes. Under this Government the money raised increased to £14 billion, but the extra £7 billion was not spent on roads. Only £1 billion was spent on any form of transportation. To meet the Treasury's demand to cut income tax, the Government introduced what became a transport tax, while the poor public paid even more for the privilege of travelling.
The Labour Government spent, on average, 35 per cent. of the money raised. Under this Government, the amount spent has fallen to 24 per cent. If they were spending the same proportion of the tax as the Labour Government did, this Government would have an extra £2 billion in the kitty to spend on the roads and on transportation systems. In Europe, an average of 50 per cent. of the money raised in such taxes is spent.
There has been a massive deterioration in the transport systems of road, rail and buses. Private capital is not the solution, as the Secretary of State knows. It would be interesting to hear where he stands on the matter of tolls.
In my transport industry—shipping the—Government have partly solved the problem. They have reduced the British shipping fleet from 1,200 ships to 400.
We remember the terrible tragedy of the Herald of Free Enterprise. During the past year, as the Secretary of State will know from the questions that have been asked of him, the number of ferry fires in this country has risen by four times the annual average of the past four years. Why are ferry fires increasing—particularly on P and O ferries? For six months I pushed the right hon. Gentleman to prosecute a company for a clear breach of the law. It was not until the last day of that six months that the Secretary of State took any action, and that was because a Sally Line vessel caught fire in the channel. We shall have to wait to see what the courts decide.
I used to hear in debates in this House that safety on ferries had not deteriorated. I then asked questions about it, because the rhetoric is so different from the reality. I do not see the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) in the Chamber now, but he had much to say when he denied threats to the safety of ferries.

Mr. James Wallace: Many people heard the hon. Gentleman when he appeared on television addressing a rally on Saturday. He said that records showed that P and O ships were unsafe and asked holiday-makers if they were prepared to risk their lives by travelling on them. What specific evidence does he have of lack of safety on the St. Clair, the St. Ola and the St. Sunniva, which travel from the Scottish mainland to my constituency? If he has no evidence, will he retract his comments rather than jeopardise the livelihoods of many of my constituents?

Mr. Prescott: Fires on British ferries have increased recently, and a number of them have occurred on P and O ships. I have tried to obtain detailed figures from the Government. I was telling the people at that dispute that anyone travelling out of the port of Dover on those ships should bear in mind that fires have increased fourfold during the past year. That was a justifiable comment.
The aviation industry, Lockerbie and the M1 disasters and the problems over the manufacture of Boeing have increased concern about safety —

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Does the hon. Gentleman blame the Government for those disasters, too?

Mr. Prescott: I am not blaming the Government. I am concerned about passenger safety—and Conservative Members should be as well. The blame does not lie solely with Government, but airport security involves the Government.
The Secretary of State has come to the House after each incident and assured us that he is satisfied with the enhanced security and safety at Heathrow and other airports.
After again assuring us that airport security was satisfactory, the Secretary of State told us that the British Airports Authority's report has recommended a further 100 changes. Airport security has not given the Secretary of State his finest hour. I make these allegations not solely against the Secretary of State but against his Department. The Select Committee's reports on airport security made recommendations which, to its credit, all needed to be implemented.
The Secretary of State has said that his Department has implemented most of the Select Committee's recommendations. Why then did he not answer when I asked him the same question in a letter a week or so ago? I shall tell him why: because not all the recommendations have been implemented. The important ones about the control of the police and on airport security fund were all dismantled by the Government in 1983, which made our airports less secure. The Government have much to answer for because of the reduction of security and safety at airports. [Interruption.] I shall not give way to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) because he merely goes off and writes letters to the Opposition Leader. He is a "snitch" or a sneak. I think that is the term used in public schools; I did not go to one myself.
The Government amendment mentions the problems of planning and integration. It rejects central planning, but nobody is advocating that—(Interruption.] It is quite all right, we have a decentralised way of dealing with planning. If the people of Kent thought that the people dealing with Channel tunnel matters and deciding on the route were concerned about the environment and the interests of the people of Kent, they might be happier. However, the Government have given over the responsibility of making the decision to British Rail. The private Bill is concerned about least cost, not public subsidy. The Government are happy for the Bill to contain a clause that no public money should be used to support the Channel tunnel investment. Public money will be necessary to develop the rail links in Kent and to improve the infrastructure investment for the Channel tunnel corridor to Scotland.
I wrote to the Secretary of State about the matter, asking his view of my suggestion that instead of leaving it to the House of Commons and a private Bill Committee to fight out the Bill line by line, he should accept—as he did with the central transport rail study—a 12-month study on the environmental and regional consequences. The Labour party advocated that when the White Paper on the Channel tunnel was issued. There should be an immediate inquiry so that the people of Kent and London can make representations about their concerns.
I thought that the Conservative party and the Government were concerned about the individual but it is

clear that they are riding roughshod over the individual's rights in relation to the Channel tunnel and overriding the interests of the people in Kent and London. The Labour party offers a proposal that will give the Government a chance to listen to those representations but which will not delay or extend the planning blight, because the Bill will go through the House in two parliamentary Sessions. It provides a chance for justice, a chance for a voice to be heard, and a chance for public money to be used in such a way that we get the best route in the Kent area and in the London area.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that a delay of the sort he is suggesting would leave a blight throughout Kent?

Mr. Prescott: I do not know why I continue, because the hon. Member is not listening. It is my judgment that the private Bill presented to this House will certainly create an awful lot of injustice and environmental damage in Kent if it is left as it is. I believe that that Bill could be delayed a while here.
A central study similar to the central rail study could be carried out, because the Secretary of State is to receive an environmental report and a regional report. He has now received the northern local authorities' report on the Channel tunnel. If he were to treat it in that way, and within 12 months make a recommendation to his House, the blight problems would still be there because there will be no decision in this House—in my view—for 18 months, and the Channel tunnel will certainly not be opened until 1993 or 1994. Those are the realities of the case.
If the Government had accepted our amendment when the White Paper on the Channel tunnel came before this House we would not have this problem today. We foresaw these difficulties at that time, but every hon. Member now going along with his constituents in Kent voted against that proposal, and those Members are now ganging up with early-day motions and assuring their constituents that they are going to press the Government for change. Where were they when the vote was taken in this House? They were not looking after the interests of the people of Kent. But we will look after the interests of the people of Kent, and perhaps they will have a better representative here in the next Parliament.
The Channel tunnel is a classic example of how the public interest has to be taken into account. Public and private money will be utilised in the development of the transportation system, but it is important that people be taken into account.
A further accusation that I make against the Government is that the Department of Transport is indeed an inadequate Department, though I am bound to say that I thought it was inadequate also under Labour Governments. It is a Department that does not have a very proud history. I have always been ashamed that it has not given the highest priority to safety—and, as one who has been involved in the shipping industry, I say so in respect of the decisions taken there.
It is a Department that is really the outpost of the Treasury. It refuses to fight for the travelling public and is for ever agreeing with the Treasury to impose more arid more taxes by the reduction of subsidies on the travelling public. It is anti-planning and anti-integration and is obsessed with roads, though its record in that respect is not very good. It pursues policies that reduce the number of


safety inspectors in aviation and shipping and on the railways, with dire consequences for safety in those industries.
It is also a Department that delays its inquiries. I refer, for example, to the Manchester air disaster three years ago and the loss of the Derbyshire eight years ago, and the delay in the production of these reports, to the Department's reluctance to instigate prosecutions in respect of the Herald of Free Enterprise or in respect of ferry fires, and to the handling of the Lockerbie tragedy and the fears for airport security, on which it appeared to be inept and incompetent. It suffers from a unique blend of ideological obsession and—yes, I must say it—ministerial incompetence.
Overall, the policy is also at fault. It has insufficient commitment to public transport. It has starved our transport system of finance, thus making it one of the poorest in Europe, and it is shifting the burden from the taxpayer to the passenger, who will have to pay considerably more for lower and lower quality.
That is the reality of 10 years of this Government's transport policy. That is the reality that we shall take to the people of this country, the reality of which they know from their own experience. The alternative that we shall provide, whether to the voters in Kent or to the voters in Scotland or to the voters in Humberside, will be to vote for a sensible transport policy that meets the needs of our nation as I ask the House to do tonight.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Paul Channon): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
expresses its deep concern at the transport tragedies of the last two years of the 'Herald of Free Enterprise', King's Cross, Clapham, Lockerbie, the M1 air disaster and the daily toll of deaths and injuries on our roads, and extends its sympathy to all those affected; applauds the Government's determination that safety and security must remain paramount, and welcomes the urgent steps it has taken to that end; congratulates the Government for bringing about an economic revival which has resulted in record levels of investment in roads and railways, and for recognising that the only way to provide customers with an efficient and safe public transport system is to set demanding objectives for quality of service and performance; welcomes the Government's record of approving every investment scheme put to it by British Rail and London Regional Transport, and its radical proposals to extend the public transport system in London; congratulates the Government for having recognised the limitations of central planning; and calls on the Opposition to acknowledge the legacy of neglect and under-investment which this Government inherited.
I must say that I thought that the good temper of the earlier statement would pretty soon disappear, and it has, though the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) is in quite a jolly mood, I have to confess, and I hope that he will remain jolly throughout my speech. I will try to deal with the subjects that he has raised—at slightly less length, in view of the shortage of time available for this debate. [Interruption.] I think that the House of Commons would have been very cross if we had had a major statement on safety immediately after the debate. I can just hear what hon. Members would have had to say about that.
I want to start with a point on which I think that there is no controversy. I shall not take long on it, but it is

nevertheless important. I refer to the three terrible tragedies in the past few months—in particular, the two disastrous air crashes. As the House knows, everyone is appalled by these disasters, so I need not go into that again in any detail. I should just like to remind the House where we stand at present. The investigations into the causes of the Lockerbie and Kegworth tragedies are being handled by the air accidents investigation branch of my Department. It produced a formal interim statement on the Lockerbie disaster once it had been established conclusively that the crash was caused by an explosive device in the front cargo hold. It has not yet issued such a statement on the Kegworth crash, but it will do so once the range of possible explanations has been narrowed to the point at which a statement is justified.
As to Clapham, as the House knows, the formal inquiry will be conducted by Mr. Anthony Hidden QC, with three expert assessors. It will be for Mr. Hidden and his assessors to decide which matters are relevant to their work and which are not. Until the causes of the Clapham and Kegworth tragedies are established, there is a limit to the amount that can usefully be said about them. I have said before, and I say again—I think that I have the support of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East in this—that it is futile to speculate about the causes of such disasters ahead of the evidence. It is not only futile—it is extremely unfair to the parties involved.
That does not mean that we have to delay action until the final reports are received. Indeed, British Rail is checking, for example, that there are no wiring defects in the signalling system elsewhere. British Rail conducted an internal investigation into the Clapham crash, but that is not intended to prejudge the conclusions that Mr. Hidden will reach. The same is true of the various checks that have been carried out on Boeing aircraft in the wake of Kegworth. We can also tighten up our own domestic security arrangements.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East is wrong about Sir Norman Payne's report. It does not say that 100 actions need to be taken—if refers to 100 actions that have been taken, are in course of being taken, or will be taken. There are a whole host of them, and BAA is well advanced in implementing them.
We also have to promote international action. The modern terrorist threat, as we all know, has an international dimension—and so must our response. That is why the British and American Governments sought a special ministerial meeting of the International Civil Aviation Organisation. I want to see tighter controls on what is taken on to aircraft, tighter controls on people who have access to aircraft, and changes to aircraft design so that they offer fewer places to hide a bomb and are easier to search. Only concerted international action can achieve this, and I hope that in Montreal next week we can move towards such action.
As to the Fennell recommendations addressed to London Regional Transport, my hon. Friend will have more to say about this when he winds up the debate. I believe that the statement made yesterday was a serious and responsible answer to the points raised in the Fennell report. The overwhelming majority of the recommendations in that report have been accepted and are being implemented. One or two, however, cause genuine difficulty. For instance, London Underground has not yet


been able to find a non-inflammable escalator lubricant. I give that merely as an example of a recommendation that is difficult to follow up.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the Fennell report, irrespective of the recommendations that have been made, and welcome as they are, may I ask him whether he does not agree that some questions relating to the conduct of the inquiry and the degree to which matters should or should not be taken into account have not yet been cleared up? That can be done only across the Floor of the House, especially bearing in mind that the Secretary of State quite properly used the long-standing Act of Parliament to set up an additional inquiry under Mr. Fennell.

Mr. Channon: I made a very full statement on the Fennell inquiry. I know that the Opposition have been asking for a debate on that matter, and I think that in recent times my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has always given a fairly sympathetic answer. That is a matter that must be pursued through the usual channels. Of course, there will also be the debate on the London Regional Transport levy, which will have to come in the fairly near future. This is the time of year when that is always debated, as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East knows well from his experience.
Of course, after three serious transport accidents we have to look very carefully at every conceivable cause, but the search for underlying causes very often seems to result in broad generalisations which are either unhelpful or untrue.
The motion tabled by the Opposition seeks to suggest that penny-pinching economies are the real threat to safety. The suggestion is that private sector operators may take a conscious decision to economise on safety so as to boost profits, and that public sector operators may do the same to meet the financial targets set by Government. I simply do not believe that that is true. Cutting corners on safety is both socially and commercially wholly irresponsible. There should never have been any doubt in the minds of public sector operators—I do not think there was about where their key duty lies. Nevertheless I have taken the precaution of reminding them that safety comes first so that there is not the slightest room for any possible misunderstanding on that point.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Is it not true that the Fennell report recorded that there was an atmosphere of pressure to cut back on safety expenditure? That arises from Government pressure on spending and the general concept of the enterprise culture.

Mr. Channon: It does not come from Government pressure on safety expenditure. The hon. Gentleman is right that there were severe criticisms of the management, and the chairmen of London Regional Transport and London Underground resigned as a result of the Fennell report.
The argument that no savings must be made in any quarter because savings would compromise safety is dear to Opposition Members, but it is wrong. It is a specious argument and should be exposed as such. I remind the House of what Fennell said in his report:
In my judgment there is no evidence that the overall level of subsidy available to London Regional Transport was inadequate to finance necessary safety-related spendings and retain safety standards.

On staffing, he said:
I found no evidence that the reduction in the number of operating or maintenance staff contributed directly to the disaster at Kings Cross.
I see no reason why efficiency and safety cannot go hand in hand. On the contrary, the drive for greater efficiency is likely to involve management: in looking much harder at all aspects of its operations, including safety. Laxness and inefficiency would be far more worrying.
Another claim hinted at in the motion, though not so much in the speech of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, is that congestion also poses a real threat to safety. That is not the case. For example, despite the massive increase in air travel, there has been a considerable improvement in safety. [Interruption.] The point that I am making is that congestion and safety are two separate matters. We shall see what Mr. Hidden says in his report. The aviation point makes my case for me.

Mr. Adley: As the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), was afraid to give way in case I asked him a question, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he agrees with me on two points? First, does he agree that the rapid increase in mobility is itself a comment on the Government's economic policy? Secondly, does he agree that it would have been helpful if the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East had made even one constructive proposal as to how any future Labour Government—if there were ever to be such a thing—could run the economy in such a way as to raise the money required to do all the things that the Opposition keep talking about?

Mr. Channon: I agree with my hon. Friend on both points.
I have one final point about safety. Recent events have ensured that the safety of public transport will engage the attention of the House today. That is understandable, but I remind hon. Members that the safety of public transport—by road, rail, sea and air—is in general very good. Appalling though the recent death tolls have been, we should remind ourselves, as we were considering earlier, that more than 5,000 people were killed and a further 300,000 injured on the roads in 1987. Cutting road casualties by one third by the year 2000 must therefore remain a top priority. The White Paper published today and all the other measures that we are taking to improve road safety have far greater potential to save lives than any conceivable improvement that we could make to the safety of public transport systems.

Mr. Richard Holt: Does my right hon. Friend accept his own thesis that motorways are safer to drive on than ordinary roads? In that context, how can the Government justify not extending the M1 to the north-east instead of fiddling about with junctions which are making the position worse?

Mr. Channon: I thought that my hon. Friend might make that point. He makes it vigorously on all conceivable occasions. Perhaps he will await the publication of the revised road programme to see whether his representations have had the desired effect. If they have not, no doubt he will be at me again.
The motion censures the Government on two main counts. It criticises us for allowing safety standards to slip, which is not true, and it also holds us responsible for congestion. I am very fair and I am prepared to do a deal


with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East. I am prepared to accept 50 per cent. of the blame if he will take the other 50 per cent. We will accept responsibility for having created the healthy economy and the competitive transport market that have led to a massive upsurge in the demand for transport if the Opposition will accept responsibility for the years of under-investment before 1979 when the nation was in hock to the International Monetary Fund.
Contrary to what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East said, there has been no under-investment in transport under this Government. We have been making good the backlog of neglect that we inherited in such vital areas as motorway maintenance as well as investing to meet the increased demand that our policies have generated. For instance, investment in roads has never been higher. We have behind us a major roads building programme, though not so great as my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) would like. Government expenditure has been targeted on the bypasses and relief roads which bring the quickest and most effective relief to traffic and to local communities. We plan to spend over £3 billion on new trunk roads over the next five years and £1·3 billion on maintenance. Let me assure the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, in case he doubts it, that maintenance expenditure is running in real terms at two and a half times the level that we inherited from the Labour Government.

Mr. Roy Hughes: The Secretary of State will be aware that there has been much complant about the Department's traffic forecasts prior to the building of new roads. This has caused much inconvenience, as well as huge expense, to the taxpayer,
through attemps to rectify problems. What is the Secretary of State doing to improve the efficiency of his Department?

Mr. Channon: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raised that point. It is interesting that the M25 has been a target for criticism. I cannot remember the exact details, but the M25 was opened two or three years ago. It takes 10 years to build a road. The forecasting for that road was done in the middle of the Labour Government's period of office. I accept the criticism, and I understand why the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East was critical of the Department of Transport under its ridiculous ministerial control at that time.

Mr. Peter Snape: Perhaps the Secretary of State can tell the House whether the civil servants who gave the Labour Government that advice, which turned out to be wrong, are still sitting in the officials' box, or have they been promoted?

Mr. Channon: I believe in ministerial responsibility. I do not hold civil servants responsible for forecasts—I hold Ministers responsible for accepting the forecasts. I suspect that Labour Treasury Ministers may have had something to do with the blame for those forecasts. [Interruption.] I am coming to the Underground, but I want to finish with roads.
There are currently more than 300 schemes in our forward construction programme, with an estimated works cost in the region of £5 billion. We all know that there are serious congestion problems and bottlenecks that

have to be dealt with. If hon. Members want to know why we have problems, I will give them the two necessary pieces of information, at which I have already hinted, and leave them to draw their own conclusions. Fact A is that it takes 10 to 15 years to build a major new road; fact B is that capital expenditure on roads was cut by a massive 40 per cent. between 1976 and 1977–78. I am very glad that I was asked about forecasting as it enabled me to make it clear that the cause of the present inadequacy is the time that it takes to build roads and the massive cuts in resources which took place under the Labour Government. The record speaks louder than the hon. Gentleman's words. I do not think that I can impress the hon. Member at all with the fact that we are spending record sums of money on roads, because he will say roads are a special case even if he agrees with it—which he does not—and that the Government are investing in the roads but only at the cost of ignoring public transport. Indeed, he has said something about public transport, but that argument will not wash either.
Let us consider the railways. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree with me about this. After decades of decline, in which we read of nothing but line closures and station closures, BR's business is now booming. More than 80 stations have been opened or reopened since 1983. BR has invested more than £2 billion in the past five years and plans to invest more than £3·5 billion in the next five years.
I am glad to be able to announce today that I have just given approval for two further investments. Network SouthEast has been given the green light to purchase 77 new Network turbo vehicles to operate on services from Marylebone. I have also approved the electrification of the Cambridge to King's Lynn line and the associated purchase of seven four-car electrical multiple units. That is good news for rail travellers in the Chilterns and East Anglia and continuing good news for other travellers on Network SouthEast and elsewhere where there is a continuing and growing rail investment programme.

Mr. Tony Baldry: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. It is indeed extremely good news that my right hon. Friend has announced a substantial investment for the Chiltern line. That will be good news for Metroland, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire, and I suspect that there will be much rejoicing among the commuter public about that. To ensure that commuters actually dance in the streets, will my right hon. Friend please make it clear that he will shortly be announcing his decision on the final stage of the M40 link—because once the M40 is built and the Chiltern line complete, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire really will be able to take advantage of their geographical location.

Mr. Channon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I hope not to keep him waiting too long on the latter point either, but I am not in a position to make an announcement today.

Mr. Henry Bellingham: I am grateful for the announcement about electrification in Cambridgeshire. That will certainly be welcomed by people in my constituency, who have been campaigning for six years. Does my right hon. Friend agree, however, that without the support of local business and developers


and the £650,000 guaranteed by the local borough council the scheme probably would not have gone ahead? Can he also tell us when it will start and how much it will cost?

Mr. Channon: I can probably give the figures for that. If I cannot, my hon. Friend will give them when he winds up. It will not take long. I agree with the earlier part of my hon. Friend's question. I am very glad that we have managed to approve the scheme and I hope that it will be of benefit to King's Lynn and to other stations on the line. Indeed, some of my hon. Friends have been very excited by that as well.

Mr. Alan Haselhurst: Will my right hon. Friend accept from me that this is indeed welcome news, and does indeed have potential benefits for other stations on the line, including commuters from my constituency? Could I ask him, though, whether he would be prepared to listen to representations at a later stage about whether just one class of rolling stock is suitable for this project?

Mr. Channon: I will certainly do that. My hon. Friend the Minister of State is considering the point. Perhaps my hon. Friend will be in touch with him.
I think that the answer to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) is that the scheme will cost about £20 million and should be open in 1991.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East said that we were not investing enough in British Rail, but investment now is the highest in real terms for 20 years. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, it is—I have the figures. I have the famous answer that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East keeps talking about, and it is true£560 million at 1988–89 prices is being invested in British Rail now. What the Opposition will not understand is the difference between the public service obligation which does not go on investment—and investment, which is what is needed to improve British railways. In the next few years, far from remaining at £560 million in real terms, investment will go up to an average of £755 million—the highest for years. That is at 1988–89 prices, in real terms. When the Labour party was in power between 1974 and 1979 the highest it ever reached was £474 million, so let us hear less nonsense about underinvestment in British Rail.

Mr. Bob Cryer: The Minister has been telling us how the Government are committed to the railways. When will he make the announcement that instead of being minded to close the Settle to Carlisle railway the Government will tell British Rail to make a success of it. to develop the success that the line has already become under the threat of closure and give it the new lease of life that it deserves?

Mr. Channon: I know the hon. Member's views about the Settle to Carlisle line and I am considering all the representations that have been made. They need careful study and I will make an announcement as soon as I can, but I think that it will be a little while yet.
The point that I still cannot get into the heads of Opposition Members—I simply cannot understand why not—is that facts are facts. [Interruption.] Yes, they are. The fact is that investment in British Rail in real terms at 1988–89 prices will be £755 million on average for the next four years. That is about £200 million more than what it is now, which is already nearly £100 million higher than the highest figure under the last Labour Government.
Of course, BR is not the only undertaking investing in railways. The private sector is financing the biggest rail investment of them all—the £6 billion required to build the Channel tunnel. The London Underground also has ambitious investment plans. The re-equipment of the Central line alone will cost more than £700 million. Work is under way on the Bank extension of the Docklands light railway, and work is planned on the Beckton extension if Parliament approves the Bill now before it.
We have recently published the report of the central London rail study and have commissioned the east London rail study. I have no doubt that these studies will result in further investment in new railway lines for London. Moreover, London is not the only city to get new lines—Manchester will have its Metrolink, and a number of interesting ideas are in the pipeline for other cities.
There has been no shortage of finance for airports either. Two new terminals for Heathrow and Gatwick have been opened and the new terminal at Stansted is under construction. There is no overall shortage of airport capacity in the London area at this stage. Since 1981 we have supported more than £300 million worth of investment in the local authority airports through special capital allocations. Last December's regional airport allocations will allow work to start on the major new terminal at the East Midlands airport and, all told, the number of passenger movements handled by regional airports should double or treble between now and 2005.
The real problem of congestion in the airports last summer was a Europe-wide shortage of air traffic control capacity, aggravated by an industrial dispute. Even the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, with all his persuasive powers, cannot stop foreign air traffic controllers going on strike. Perhaps he will celebrate when they do and have his nice picket line, but I can and will tackle the problem of air traffic control capacity both domestically and internationally. Last October I agreed a two-thirds increase in the Civil Aviation Authority's capital expenditure. There are very difficult operational problems in introducing a new air traffic control system while keeping the existing system fully operational 24 hours a day, but I can assure the House that finance is not a constraint. On the international side last year we used our presidency of Eurocontrol to promote a number of initiatives, of which the most important is the central flow management unit to stream line the routing of aircraft across Europe.
Under the GLC, investment in the London Underground was at a lamentable level. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is not here to justify the level of investment when he and his friends were in power. Lots of money was spent on subsidising fares but none on improving the underground system. That system, above all, takes time to improve because it cannot be closed while improvements are carried out and we all know that it is very old. Fare increases on the London Underground have been well below increases in average wages since 1980 and are no higher in real terms than they were then.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East has got it completely wrong and cannot sustain with any credibility his criticism of the transport infrastructure. We also hear criticisms from the Opposition, though not so much today. Usually we are told that we have committed the heinous sin of asking those who benefit from new investments to bear the cost, but I must point out that in


the bad old days when we operated on the doctrine that the state alone must provide the state actually did not provide. Under this Government the state is beginning to provide and to improve all the systems. I live in hope, and tonight I shall go down on my knees and pray that one day I shall be able to make the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East understand the facts and figures on investment, although it is no doubt a forlorn hope that in Lent he will come to repentance.
The Opposition's second line of attack is to say that all the investment is unco-ordinated. That objection is even sillier than the previous one. The Government were wise to do away with central transport planning, but in reality it died a natural death before we took office. Our achievement was to do away with the burden of superfluous regulations, which no longer served any purpose, and to put something more effective—market forces—in their place.
When we have just announced two more radical policies—one on transport in London and another on road safety—it is richly ironic for the Opposition to attack us for lacking a transport policy. Where is Labour's transport policy? The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East spent 35 minutes criticising us, but he has not one constructive idea to put forward. In recent months we have answered three debates on transport at the Opposition's behest, and we were expecting to hear something of their policies, but three times we have been deeply disappointed. Perhaps the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) will tell us when he winds up. When shall we be told the Opposition's intention? Is the subject so low on their list of priorities that we cannot be told what they would do? Perhaps they need to go to Moscow to find out. Are their internal party wranglings so bitter? Perhaps Mr. Todd will not come on side. [Interruption.] Or is it merely that there is a complete dearth of original thought among Opposition Members?
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East spends far too much time on the picket line; I have a charming photograph of him in a Sunday newspaper backed by the motto, "Loyalty and Honour"—qualities for which he is so renowned by his own leader. I am considering using that photograph as the Department of Transport's Christmas card this year.
This Government have made spending on transport a top priority. I understand that the slimmer right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) has declared his intention to keep a very close eye on the expenditure commitment of Opposition spokesmen. Surely the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, in his blunt and succinct manner, should have told us the amount of money to which he is allowed to commit Labour on transport spending. He continually talks about the Treasury. What about his own future Treasury if Labour ever returned to Government?
Since the hon. Gentleman has proved unable to answer that question, the House must assume that he speaks with neither the authority nor the commitment of his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East because he cannot tell us anything that Labour proposes to do. Everyone who takes a serious interest in transport deserves an answer to that question. The House will agree that the hon. Gentleman's failure to provide any

suggestions whatsoever has shown up all the Opposition posturing on safety and congestion as the sham and fraud that it is. Their silence speaks volumes and I ask the House to reject their ridiculous motion.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The last words that will be heard in the House of Commons tonight, in emptied halls, are, "Who goes home?". It is a historic hangover from the time when Members of Parliament needed to be escorted by link men. Those words will not be heard by the majority of those who rush to the taxi point or out to their cars, but quite possibly they will be heard by a number of people who work in this building. I am very disappointed at the Secretary of State's performance this afternoon in which he displayed superficial but quite savage contempt for those people who are most concerned about public transport.
Most women in this country care about what happens to the bus system and to the railway system because almost without exception they use it. They know about the total unreality of the Secretary of State's figures for the provision of staff on the Underground and on the railway as it is reflected in the danger that they face when they leave here every night. The women who work in the Refreshment Department are a clear example. They are not particularly concerned about the billions of pounds that we are told are now being spent. They will be concerned that violent crimes on all the railway systems have increased noticeably. They travel in emptier carriages with fewer staff and with much less access to any help and they are in increasing danger of attack or assault. They know that the Government needed to be goaded by the most bizarre set of comic-book characters from America into beginning to face the fact that there are not sufficient transport staff on the system to defend those who use it. They will find it remarkable that a Government who put above all their commitment to the road system are now beginning to perceive, albeit vaguely, the need for providing through the railway and through more integrated planning of bus and other services a transport system that will enable people to travel safely and in comfort.
I have met many railwaymen who have been subjected to assault. They know exactly what happens. I have met 60-year-olds nearing retirement who have been beaten up for a £1 ticket. They would be singularly unimpresed by the level of this debate. I have met people in their early 30s who in attempting to save a woman from assault were beaten up so badly that they were off work for 18 months and have still not regained their previous posts.
Safety for people on the Underground and the railways is not a matter for superficial and supposedly clever propaganda in the House of Commons. It is a day-to-day and night-to-night worry for women who find it a nightmare to try to get from their place of work to their homes in safety.

Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend accept that the Government are further encouraging the difficult circumstances that she has described? Last night they gave their backing to a Bill which imposes penalties on fare dodgers. Those penalties will have to be collected by railwaymen and railwaywomen and the British Rail board has declared an undertaking to get rid of staff and replace them with automatic ticket machines. Therefore, women


who go home late at night will find not a friendly railway person to guide them but a ticket machine which probably will have been vandalised.

Mrs. Dunwoody: The Secretary of State and those who support him who refuse to connect the provision of money with the provision of staff must face the fact that the reiteration of the argument that there has been no financial restraint will fall badly upon the ears of those who use the public transport system. One gets the distinct impression that very few Conservative Members use public transport. Therefore, they do not see what happens.
Some years ago, the guards in the Liverpool area told me that they were being continually assaulted and required assistance. For a short time they were escorted by British Transport police. However, as soon as they moved from one section to another, the British Transport police left the train and the same guards were assaulted again. That is the day-to-day reality of public transport. It is directly connected with money.
When I spoke to a former senior representative of London Transport about the provision of safety on London Underground, he said, "Where is the money to come from?" The Government will not provide it, so it has to come from the passengers. The money will not be forthcoming in the present circumstances. If one constantly harps on about the need to cut staff because they are expensive, the result is empty stations and women hurrying through darkened corridors wondering whether they will get mugged. If one constantly cuts back on proper staffing and takes any contract from any cheapjack firm, one will get people whose commitment to the system is minimal and who will do the minimum required of them. If one consistently says that the only thing to be considered is an ability to balance the books, the result will be what we have in London today—a dirty, dangerous and unattractive public transport system. The women of this country pay the price for that attitude every time they use the public transport system. The staff pay for it in increasing numbers of assaults and, in the final analysis, the public pays for it.
The Secretary of State asked why it was that he had not heard from the Labour party about its policy. The simple answer is that every member of the travelling public could write a public transport policy for him tomorrow. It would ask for decent investment and for a level of comfort that does not mean that on the trains between Crewe and Carlisle there is sometimes 200 per cent. overcrowding with people standing in the corridors and the guards being unable to walk from one end of the train to the other. They will tell the Secretary of State that investment is needed, not just in more concrete roads, but in the provision of proper rolling stock, properly guarded stations and decent, clean and properly serviced public facilities. The public will say to the Secretary of State, "Whatever your statistics, try travelling on some of the public transport that most of the people of this country have to use every day of their lives." Even the Secretary of State might then begin to take a less rosy view.

Mr. Terence L. Higgins: Even in a debate as short as this, I must begin by recording the profound concern in my constituency about the proposals put forward by the Government's consultants for the redevelopment of the A27 in my constituency. Far from

meeting the Government's policy of taking traffic away from towns, the proposals would effectively cut the town of Worthing in half and that is why one sees Worthing covered in notices saying:
A bypass not a through pass.
The matter is still being considered by Ministers and I hope that they will consider it in the light not only of that report, but of the report commissioned by the local council and the enormous petition they have received and that they will ensure that Worthing has a bypass that avoids the town completely.
I want to take up a point made in the Opposition motion and the Government amendment about the deep concern that every hon. Member feels about the recent rail and air tragedies. I repeat the comment that I made in an earlier intervention about the unnecessary anguish caused to vast numbers of people who are not affected by the disasters, but who are concerned because they think that relatives or friends may have been. We must improve the arrangements for telephone communication in those circumstances. I hope that it will be possible to establish a single telephone number to be used when a major disaster takes place which everyone knows is for information, just as we use 999. I hope that that can be done, but even if it cannot the emergency numbers must have a queuing system in which a recording tells people that they are in a queue and that if they hang on they will eventually receive an answer. There is, of course, tremendous strain on resources at such times, but at present people have to keep ringing and they receive the engaged tone over and over again. That covers far more people than those involved in any particular accident because people do not know whether their friends and relatives are involved. On humanitarian grounds, we should put in the extra resources that are needed.
The Opposition motion—which is more a book than a motion—is an own goal because, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out, in reality there has been a massive increase in the resources devoted to all aspects of transport. I want to congratulate him perhaps I should not, as a former Treasury Minister—on the way in which he has fought his Department's battle with the Treasury, which has been reflected in the substantial increase in infrastructure expenditure and real resources. That is a success.
As the debate is brief, I want to produce a shopping list rather than anything else. My first point concerns sea transport. I began my commercial life in the shipping industry, where I was for about seven years. In the docks at that time the inter-union rivalry was so tremendous that the troops finally had to be sent in to deal with the immediate problems. In that context, we have seen the port of London shrivel while others grow, for a simple reason—the national dock labour scheme. I find it extraordinary that, after 10 years of Conservative Government, we have not dealt with that problem. I know that the matter is partly one for the Department of Employment rather than for my right hon. Friend, but the time has come when we must consider whether it is a satisfactory arrangement. I say that it is not a satisfactory arrangement for the future development of our ports in relation to our European competitors.
I shall say a brief word about rail. The central London rail study has made imaginative proposals for improving the rail network and that is an exciting prospect. My right


hon. Friend envisages a timetable with a Bill in November 1989. That excites the imagination and will lead to an improvement if we take the opportunity.
I want to make some specific suggestions on road transport. It is noticeable that the Opposition have made little mention of buses and the extraordinary change as a result of which the ratepayers' subsidy has been reduced, to the great benefit of my constituents, while there has been an increase in consumer choice and competition. However, I am concerned about the situation in London. We are suffering from a hangover from some of the Greater London council's so-called road improvement programmes. One needs only to look at the extraordinary situation on the other side of Westminster bridge. The boroughs are not doing an adequate job in this respect, so I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider seriously taking road transport in London back under the control of his Department, where it used to be. One example I want to give is that of coaches parking on Westminster bridge, especially continental coaches from which passengers are discharged into the middle of the road. Yesterday morning and this morning there was a string of coaches with the drivers on the wrong side discharging passengers into the middle of the road. There will be a serious accident, but Westminster council seems to be doing nothing about it.
If one considers bus lanes in, for example, the constituency of the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock), one realises that the traffic flow, including buses, is seriously slowed down by bus lanes. If one waits until 10 am to drive in, it is equally apparent that even then bus lanes are restricting traffic to one lane, partly because cars are parked in the bus lanes and partly because people no longer drive in bus lanes after 10 am because the lanes are painted red or have lines. The bus lanes should be reviewed.
Motor cyclists are another serious matter. The White Paper, which is greatly to be welcomed in many respects, refers to the appalling loss of life for motor cyclists. They account for about 14 per cent. of road deaths and 20 per cent. of serious accidents, although motor cycles form only 2 per cent. of traffic. Weaving in and out of moving traffic is a serious offence in New York and the police enforce it. We should consider making it an offence as well. I also do not understand why, when there are such stringent regulations for other commercial drivers, we allow courier motor-cycle companies to employ learner drivers who have passed no test whatever. I ask my right hon. Friend whether he would be prepared to accept and support a private Member's Bill designed to deal with that problem.
I want to talk now about the M25 and all that that entails. I use it four or five times a week going to and from my constituency. Whenever there is an accident or bad weather and there is a massive traffic jam, drivers are locked into it. At appropriate points on the M25 there should be gates that the police can open with traffic signals, so that if there is a tailback for five or six miles before the next exit drivers would have the option of turning round, going back off the motorway and taking some other route. The same applies to warning notices because it is all too easy to come on to the M25 and find a 10-mile traffic jam straight ahead. If there had been a notice about 100 yards

further back, one would not have gone on to the M25 and would have avoided the traffic jam, with corresponding reductions in the congestion faced by everyone else.
I approve of my right hon. Friend's announcement about cameras. Obviously there are technical problems that we must all consider carefully, but I hope that cameras will be used to deal with speeding on motorways because we all know perfectly well that there is virtually no speed limit enforcement at the moment. I hope that cameras will also deal with the problem of tail-gating, which is undoubtedly terrifying for many people, especially when it involves heavy lorries. As I understand it, there are proposals for governors on coaches which are also a serious motorway hazard. When will coach governors be introduced and enforced?
I wish to make only two other points as I am anxious to leave time for other hon. Members to speak in this short debate. My right hon. Friend should consider carefully, with the Home Office, the problem of car theft. Cars are often stolen for so-called joyrides, which is dangerous because there is no insurance. Car theft, based on the idea of taking the car without the owner's permission, is a totally absurd offence with totally absurd penalties. One could steal a car worth between £10,000 and £20,000 and attract a penalty of the kind that might reasonably be expected if one had picked a pocket for, say, a £5 note.
Finally, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will stick to his proposals in the White Paper for not extending clamping. I do not believe that clamping has been helpful in central London, but whether or not that is so I am clear that it would not be helpful in a broader context.
I am against Privy Councillors making long speeches and hope that mine has not been too long. I ask my right hon. Friend to support my suggestions.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: When serious accidents such as those mentioned in the motion and the amendment occur it is a matter of form in this House to express sympathy to the victims and to extend congratulations to the members of the rescue services. However, I doubt whether any of us know how traumatic it is for the victims of such accidents who survive and for the relatives of those who do not. Nor, I suspect, do we really know what young policemen and policewomen or young soldiers have to face in the aftermath of such major disasters. I entertain great doubt whether I could do what they have to do in the course of their duty. I suspect that when we express sympathy or extend our congratulations we do so as much out of a sense of relief as from any other motive.
If I may be forgiven the expression, the Opposition motion has an "omnibus" quality about it. It is guilty of a certain imprecision in language. However, it raises sharply an issue that the Government amendment complacently ignores. In such a debate, some things cannot be challenged. Congestion in London is now a national issue. No doubt all of us could give illustrations of that from our experiences. It took, for example, seven minutes for the nearest fire engine to reach King's Cross Underground station—a distance of 1,400 yards, at a speed of approximately 7 mph. When students sat on two bridges


near the House of Commons before Christmas the traffic in central London took between three and four hours to return to normal.
If any hon. Members who go to Heathrow ever travel west on the M4 between 6am and 7am, they will enjoy a relatively easy passage, but they will see the stagnant east-bound lanes, of private or seemingly private cars containing drivers but no passengers, nose to tail for many miles. That is hardly surprising because 2·1 million vehicles cross the old Greater London council boundary every day and 1·5 million vehicles come within 1·8 miles of Aldwych. It is easy to say that all the drivers on the M4 should be on public transport, but what consequences would that have? There would be more overloaded trains and more overloading on the Underground.
Those of us who use Heathrow regularly are ashamed of the first impression that many foreign travellers to Britain must get. The facilities on the Underground from Heathrow to central London are grossly inadequate, with no proper provision for luggage. The trains are frequently unclean and unpleasant and in the rush hour it is often difficult to get a seat when travelling from central London.
Anecdotal evidence is always to be found in such debates, and on Saturday, in a state of modified rapture, I came back from Twickenham to Waterloo and then attempted to travel from Waterloo to Heathrow by tube. To do so, I sought to go down one of the three escalators leading from the forecourt to the tube system, but only one was operating. The other two had clearly been out of operation for some considerable time, with little explanation and the inevitable congestion. One finds that kind of breakdown far too often in the system. It inevitably results in inconvenience and congestion. It has been estimated that the cost of road congestion in London now amounts to about £1·5 billion per annum and about £10 billion for the United Kingdom as a whole.
It seems clear that the forecasts of growth, upon which investment has been made, have rarely been accurate. One cannot believe that the present level of congestion would arise as a result of a planned or forecast expansion. It is also the case that the lead-in time to the substantial improvements that are required is unnecessarily long. The problem is that commuters do not sit quietly at home waiting for the improvements to be effected. I suspect that most commuters would have little interest in the statistical to-ing and fro-ing that has characterised the debate. They have an interest only in being comfortable, safe and efficiently conveyed to their place of work.
We are now paying for years and years of neglect. We still rely on a system which, so far as the railways are concerned, has more than a hint of Victorian values about it. The scale of the problem that we face, especially in the south-east, requires massive investment, plus a recognition of the necessary interdependence between different modes of travel. I fail to see how that can be achieved without central direction and public-led investment.
There must also be a recognition that improvements must meet changing environmental aspirations. The public expect and demand it and are right to do so. It necessarily follows that environmentally sympathetic improvements of the transport system will be more expensive. We cannot expect to preserve the environment on the cheap. However offensive that may be to other elements of the Government's philosophy, they must accept that the

maintenance of the environment will require central direction and in important and significant cases possibly central decision-making also.
Public transport need not all be publicly owned, but the overall pattern of public transport must be established with the public interest in mind. The Government have a duty to establish that pattern. I regret that so far in the debate there has been precious little evidence that they have done so or that they are willing to do so. For that reason, my hon. Friends and I will support the Opposition motion.

Mr. James Hill: I rise simply to ask the question which I wanted to ask earlier this afternoon and which can be incorporated in this wide debate on transport. I am becoming a little concerned that the police are being given ever-increasing powers. Motorists are normally law-abiding citizens and have no intention of getting 12 penalty points.
The police are harassed because of the amount of legislation that has been passed during the last few years. I feel that some of the points made by my right hon. Friend could mean that once again my constituents, who use the Winchester bypass, the M3 and the M25—which appears to be in complete disrepair—will be feeling harassed. There have been 5,000 deaths caused, for example, by drink-driving, disrepair of motorways or by a basic fault in the car's structure. My right hon. Friend must, however, from time to time pat motorists on the back for the reduction in road casualties, which I am sure would go down well.

Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend has made an important point. I strongly sympathise with him. The point of the White Paper is to provide the most severe penalties for those who drive badly. However, those who commit trivial offences—as any hon. Member could—will be treated more leniently than in the past. They will receive more warnings.
The reduction in road accidents over the past few years reflects great credit on drivers. I shall continue to make that clear. I am sorry if I have not made that point clear enough this afternoon.

Mr. Hill: There has been a lack of good propaganda for the police. A television film was made about the M4. In a recent court case in Winchester, policemen, along with private investigators, were found guilty of using the police national computer to find out information mainly about motorists. That is something which cannot be allowed to continue. The police national computer must be readily available, especially to police patrolling motorways, but there must be a safeguard to ensure that those who earn money from such information cannot gain access to it.
My right hon. Friend has lived with the problem of the M3 for many years, but let us hope that it will not go on much longer. Will it go through St. Catherine's Hill, around St. Catherine's Hill on the existing Winchester bypass or where? Such a city as Southampton, growing in leaps and bounds, needs that information.
On a completely different subject, there was a debate in the plenary session of the Council of Europe last week on aviation security. I believe that there must be an overall European overview on aviation security, but that it should be carried even further. When my right hon. Friend


receives the completed resolution and a copy of the report of the debate—in which I spoke—he will notice that it goes far beyond Europe. After the Lockerbie incident, we could point to security in Frankfurt and in London, but, of course, planes come in from the far east, Canada and the United States of America. An international body must set down the guidelines for aviation security. There must be a points system for airports. All airports are not safe. I believe that we all agree that my right hon. Friend was right to refuse to issue a licence to an employer at London airport who had not taken the necessary precautions to find out the background of his employees. That happens, however, in practically every airport throughout the world. Generally, the back doors of airports are not guarded. There is no end to aviation security. I suppose that we members of the Council of Europe must be brave as we travel throughout the world.
The sooner that my right hon. Friend can create a good image of the police, of the motorists and certainly of his Department, the better. It is not just a matter of money.
We should think seriously about the provision of toll motorways. My right hon. Friend has probably already thought about them. There is no reason why there should not be toll motorways alongside existing motorways. Those of us who use the M3 would be delighted if, by paying a toll, we could drive to London that bit quicker. My right hon. Friend would be well advised to drive from Calais to Strasbourg on the French toll motorway so that he can appreciate the efficiency of that system.

Mr. Chris Smith: I listened with considerable astonishment to the Secretary of State's contribution to the debate and I read with equal incredulity the terms of the amendment to the Opposition motion. Both were essays in complacency which sits completely at odds with the daily experience of my constituents. The majority of my constituents use London Transport in some form or another virtually every day of their lives. Their day by day experience is of increasing congestion, of dirty stations, of overcrowded trains and buses, and fares that are rising at considerably greater rates than the rate of inflation. They are concerned about the safety of the transport system which they use. My constituents' worry and anger about the system that they must use are completely unreflected, and unanswered, by the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Adley: I was wondering why the hon. Member's incredulity was shared by only one other Labour Back Bencher sitting behind him on this Opposition Supply day.

Mr. Smith: I knew that I was wise to give way to the hon. Gentleman, because it enables me to point out that time is extremely short in this debate. Many of my hon. Friends were present during the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). Many of my hon. Friends representing London constituencies—those who were here and those who were unable to be present—have mentioned similar concerns to my own.
Many recent London Transport decisions have made matters worse. One example is the continual drive by London Transport to introduce an even greater

proportion of one-person operated buses on the London bus routes, which will cause greater congestion and will provide a worse service for the travelling public. Another example is the way in which London Transport has introduced ticket barriers in London Underground stations. Passengers are worried about the safety of those barriers. It is difficult, too, for people carrying heavy bags or wheeling prams to pass through them. Those are issues which London Transport clearly has not considered. On top of those changes, which make travelling worse for my constituents, there have been dramatic fare increases in the past months. Those, of course, are to be supplemented by increases in the rate levy which my constituents must pay on top of those increased fares.
We have small elements of relief in this overall gloomy picture. I am pleased to say that at long last the Government have agreed to provide the funds for the badly needed improvement work at the Angel tube station. That is welcome. However, it is sad that it took years of campaigning, lobbying and requesting for that decision to be made.
Some hopeful signs are also emerging from the central London rail study. I hope that the proposed new line through the Angel and Essex road and out to Hackney will come to fruition. It will be of great benefit to my constituents. However, I hope that Ministers will begin to rethink some of the comments that they have been making about that study which imply that the overall cost of new investment in new tube and rail lines will have to be met largely by passengers. The proper source for such investment in the basic infrastructure of our capital city is the Government rather than dramatically increased fares.
Our transport system, especially that in London, has three basic requirements. The first is improved capital investment. The Government make much of their relatively recent awakening to the benefits of capital investment in public transport. I suppose that we must be glad of some of the progress that they have made. But they have not gone anywhere near far enough. We have only to look at the nature of London's Underground system to see that clearly.
The Government say that they are putting millions into the upgrading of the Central line. That is welcome, but what about the poor old Northern line? In many ways that is an even worse system than the Central line. Anyone who travels daily on the Northern line is becoming increasingly frustrated by the difficulties that that line poses. The new rolling stock, the new stations and the new work that is needed to improve London's Underground system is very much overdue, and the Government are not going far enough or fast enough in the investment that needs to be made.
Secondly, in addition to more capital investment we need more investment in the revenue running of the system. Year by year since the Government took over responsibility from the GLC for the support of London Regional Transport they have reduced the system's revenue subsidy. That inevitably means higher fares, fewer staff and a worse and less attractive system. That is not the direction in which we should be going.
Thirdly, we need a number of measures to discourage private vehicles from coming into central London. We shall have to look at that in the House in the course of the next few years. At the moment, London is simply clogging up and we cannot allow that to continue unabated.
In addition to all the problems that I have mentioned, my constituents are now facing British Rail's proposals for King's Cross, for which legislation is shortly to come before the House. I shall not say much about that now because doubtless we shall have the opportunity to debate it at much greater length in due course. But suffice it for me to say that at the moment King's Cross is one of the most congested and overcrowded parts of the entire London traffic system, both above and below ground. If British Rail's proposals go through, King's Cross simply will not be able to cope. British Rail has not seriously considered that and the problems that that entails. It has not looked at a proper strategic over-view of London and the nation's transport system.
Some of my constituents died in the King's Cross fire. Some of the emergency services that responded to that disaster came from my constituency. Many, indeed most, of my constituents use London's transport services day by day, week by week. They know at first hand the problems that face them on that transport system. It is about time that the Government woke up to what is happening, abandoned their complacency and started investing in the measures that are needed to stop our capital city from clogging up. I must sound a warning for the Government. It may already be almost too late for them to start acting properly.

Mr. Gary Waller: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) spent so much of his speech being negative. For example, he attacked my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) for not being here although he is involved in a Committee.
However, it is right that we should address the problems of congestion and safety. Congestion is becoming a major issue among the public. The Government have no need to take lessons from the Opposition on the roads programme. In the coming financial year there will be 50 per cent. more road construction than before 1979 when it was decimated by the need to go to the IMF.
No Department of Transport forecast of traffic growth anticipated the exceptional rate of increase now taking place, reflecting the economic achievements of recent years. At one point in the past year the increase was four times the high growth forecast used by the Department in planning the road programme. The figures confirm what regular motorway users already know. The roads are carrying traffic far in excess of their design capacity and some motorway sections carry well over 50 per cent. more vehicles per day than the number for which they were planned.
Those who have urged the Government to take careful note of the economic return to be gained from road construction and the economic and competitive disadvantages of failing to provide an adequate road network are now coming to be seen to be fully justified in their views. We are all slowly grasping the point that capital expenditure which produces an immediate and continuing return in terms of reduced congestion and greater industrial efficiency must be considered differently from other spending which does not provide such returns. It is

that greater industrial efficiency which generates economic growth without which hospials, schools and other social benefits that we all want cannot come about.
The planning process is cumbersome. Far too many roads and other transport infrastructure schemes which were badly needed have been delayed much longer than necessary. Any practical means of ensuring that the right roads and schemes are built in the right places more quickly than would otherwise be the case are to be welcomed. We look forward to the document that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State intends to publish before long setting out proposals for greater private sector involvement in public sector transport schemes. There are some successful examples. It is encouraging to see a number of cities and regions coming forward with light rail proposals financed as investment projects. In the London Docklands and a number of estuarial crossings there is great scope for bringing forward much-needed infrastructure.
However, we should be cautious about the idea that many major new strategic roads can be financed on a similar basis. There are problems to be considered before we rush headlong towards a regime incorporating roads financed on the basis of tolls. For example, it has been suggested that some bypasses could be built by private firms which would be allowed to charge tolls. Unfortunately, it is not as simple as that. In order to achieve the maximum environmental benefit, bypasses must attract most of the traffic which previously clogged up the streets of the towns or villages concerned. Anyone who has driven along a relatively deserted Italian autostrada—this may be a response to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill)—while heavy trucks flood along the parallel all-purpose road to save the toll of a few thousand lire will appreciate that the market mechanism does not necessarily produce the most environmentally advantageous outcome. A large proportion of the roads currently being built are bypasses and environmental factors figure high in the justification for their construction.
On strategic routes, some theoretical projects are badly needed to ease congestion, while others are good candidates for toll roads. Unfortunately, the two features do not generally coincide. Take, for example, the proposed east coast motorway that some county councils and other bodies would like to see built to link the M II with the Humber bridge, and relieve traffic on the existing MI and Al roads. It could be a candidate for tolls because the number of entry and exit points could be relatively few. That is because of the general absence of major conurbations along the route. That very fact would be almost bound to lead a potential investor to realise that there would be no hope of achieving an economic return, except possibly in the very long term. Furthermore, it would make economic nonsense to build such a route at very great expense, and then to deter traffic from using it by imposing tolls that did not apply to other routes, including the Al and Ml, for which we can rule them out.
Private finance can play its part in relation to some important and often costly local schemes, such as the new Dartford bridge over the Thames and the second Severn crossing, and new roads to open up derelict areas for development. But we should not get the idea that it can be a magic alternative to major construction by the Government, for which the economic case remains strong.
Let me say briefly a word about railway overcrowding. In some places overcrowding has become a major problem, and not just in the south-east. On Network SouthEast, standards have been set by the Government for levels of overcrowding, and the Government have approved action to achieve them, including a record level of investment. On Network SouthEast, the target load factor would require that on some trains no more than 10 per cent. of passengers should be required to stand, and on others no more than a quarter.
It is time that similar targets were set for provincial services, as several of these provide a service for commuters that is similar to that of Network SouthEast. Indeed, in some cases, the trains go underground in the city centre. It is time to set British Rail targets to reduce congestion on some of its provincial services, not only because people are concerned about safety, but because if passengers have nowhere to sit on trains they are likely to have recourse to overcrowded roads, or not travel at all.

Mr. Adley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene in his very thoughtful and interesting speech.
Would my hon. Friend agree with me that, while the Government are entitled to claim credit for the capital investment in the railways, it really does seem strange that at the same time the Government are cutting the public service obligation grant, so that we are getting new lines and trains in some places, and overcrowded and dirty trains on the lines that are the heaviest used?

Mr. Waller: It is significant that the Government have not turned down any application by British Rail for a project that is economically desirable. Indeed, my hon. Friend raises some detailed points, to which it would take me a long time to respond.
There are also several localities in the provinces for which passenger transport executives also have responsibility, and where overcrowding is becoming a serious problem. In my own area, on the Airedale and Wharfedale lines in west Yorkshire, rail overcrowding has become chronic during peak periods.
If I may return briefly to roads, I wish to deal with the safety aspect about which an announcement was made earlier today. Most people rely on the roads for their transport needs. Sadly, the casualty figures reflect that fact. Road traffic accidents attract relatively little publicity compared with the major disasters, but it is right that we should do everything in our power to reduce the toll of carnage. The Government's response to the North report should be studied with care, and we look forward to the implementation of those proposals that are effective. I say "effective", because that is the only basis on which they should be judged. It is often the undramatic improvements, such as relatively cheap local traffic management and engineering schemes, which have the most significant effects. This criterion should be applied to any changes that are made to deal with, for instance, the menace of drink-driving.
The most effective measures have been taken by brewers, and others, in consultation with my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic, to persuade motorists to take non-alcoholic drinks. Much debate centres on random breath testing, but that ignores the fact that the

police already have the power to carry out spot checks and to take specimens of breath if there is any reason to believe that a motorist might have been drinking. There is a case, of course, for tidying up the law so that it is more readily understood. However, random checks would require more police manpower to do a less effective job, and we should resist calls to take action that might not work so well.
Opposition policies, so far as we can detect them, have remained basically unchanged over the past 20 years. Central transport planning, which was not just a failure but which was so hopeless a concept that it was never really put into effect, is still something they promote. Most transport problems that have been discussed in this debate arise from success. It is increasingly recognised that our transport policies can play a substantial part in contributing to and developing that success.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is coming forward all the time with new ideas, and he will certainly have my support.

Mr. Peter Snape: Whatever may be one's views on the subject that the House is debating this afternoon, and whatever side one takes in the exchanges we have heard so far, I hope that one thing that will unite the House is the acceptance that there is, rightly or wrongly, widespread dissatisfaction with transport services among the travelling public. I hope that I start on a non-controversial note by saying just that.
I listened carefully to the Secretary of State's speech. In the early part of his speech, he dealt with the air disasters at Lockerbie and Kegworth. We shall await the report of the air accident investigation branch into the Kegworth accident. After the Lockerbie tragedy, the House ought to be able to establish unanimity about airline safety.
Criticism has come from Conservative Members during this debate that all that they hear from Opposition Members is a non-stop barrage of criticism about Government policy. That is the penalty of being in government; indeed, it is what any Opposition is for. Certainly there are differences of opinion and emphasis on transport policy between the two major parties, but on airline safety I hope that we can achieve unanimity.
All of us would agree that airline passengers have a right to expect effective protection from terrorism anywhere in the world. I hope we would all agree that airport security must be upgraded to include tighter controls on carry-on baggage checks, and on transfer bags, with proper passenger screening, baggage reconciliation procedures, properly trained security staff and further research and development into plastic explosive detection.
I should have thought that agreed international standards for all of these matters, with airport spot checks by staff who are appointed by the international Civil Aviation Authority, would meet with general approval in the House. We welcome the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has initiated discussions with other Governments with a view to achieving some of these things.
However, the sensible recommendations of the House of Commons Select Committee on Transport in 1986, including a proposal to restore the security levy, ought to be looked at again. After all, a levy on passengers travelling on all international flights worldwide would raise a large aviation security fund. I know that the right


hon. Gentleman has some ideological objections to doing that in Britain, but I wonder whether he believes that the recommendations on the matter by the International Federation of Airline Passengers are worth pursuing.
Over the past six years, there have been at least seven fatal civilian aircraft bomb incidents, involving the deaths of more than 850 passengers and crew. It is pointless for the Minister to say repeatedly that British airport security is the best in the world, which it palpably is not. The Government must recognise that international terrorism recognises no boundaries and that all air travellers are at risk, regardless of which airline they choose to fly with, and whatever their airport of departure and arrival.
Decisions are also long overdue about the future of British airports. Here, the sense of unanimity that I attempted to bring to the beginning of my speech might fail. I do not believe that the Government can go on pretending that market forces will cure congestion, or ease fears about aviation safety.
It is time for the Department to come clean with people living in southern England, and to tell them that the massive increase in air traffic will inevitably mean a fifth terminal at Heathrow and greater capacity at Gatwick and Stansted, with all the air traffic control and environmental implications that that entails. The Department itself must take advantage of spare capacity in other regions, diverting continental and international flights to regional airports. The Secretary of State's belated decision on greater involvement in Euro-control is welcome, but it is a pity that it takes a summer of chaos at British airports to overcome traditional British chauvinism.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Before my hon. Friend moves on from the subject of air disasters, I wish to make one point concerning the plane crash on the M1. I accept the Secretary of State's observation that much consideration and discussion must follow the publication of the inquiry's report, but certain things ought to be done immediately as lessons begin to be learned. There is, for example, the question of the plane attempting to land at East Midlands airport and whether it would have been more appropriate to attempt a landing elsewhere. There is also the question whether a plane should be expected to land immediately and at the nearest available airport when one engine fails. The nearest available airport does not need to be an international airport, given the length of runway required.

Mr. Snape: Such questions should be answered by the inquiry, though they have properly exercised the interests of many hon. and right hon. Members.
I turn to the right hon. Gentleman's comments concerning the Clapham junction rail disaster and the Hidden inquiry. Without wishing to prejudice its findings, and using only information already in the public domain, may I say that it appears that there is a problem in respect of rail investment levels, reflected in some of the circumstances of the Clapham junction tragedy. Half of the trains travelling through what is the busiest rail junction in the world, proceeding along the old London and South Western line, are served by a signal box that is 50 years old. There is nothing inherently unsafe about that, but in an ideal world Clapham junction "A" signal box, serving the line on which the disaster occurred, would have long since been swept away and replaced�žasit is now

being replaced—by a signalling control centre covering far greater track mileage than that served by the existing signal box.
In the south of England in particular, there is a problem of staff shortages. I ask the House to accept that I make that point not on behalf of the National Union of Railwaymen—although, like my father, I am a member of that union—but because there are problems of recruiting and retaining skilled signal and telegraph staff in southern England, resulting from the low wages that have traditionally been paid and the rail industry's dependence, in the south and elsewhere, on overtime payments and on weekend and Sunday rate premiums.
There is, in these days of macho management—partly inspired by the attitude of the present Government—an additional factor for consideration. There are financial penalties on signal and telegraph staff working at Clapham junction and elsewhere, who, if they take time off because of sickness exceeding more than a few days, are liable not to be rostered for any overtime. As a result, staff are tempted to work, and do so, on occasions when they probably should not. Given their responsibilities, that cannot be conducive to a healthy working atmosphere or to passenger safety.
As to response to the Fennell inquiry, we shall study the Government's recommendations, of which there are a considerable number. We do not believe that a debate on the London Regional Transport levy is an adequate substitute for one on Fennell. covering the whole question of the effects of congestion on safety in the London Underground system. The right hon. Gentleman could not resist the temptation to pick out the particular sentence that he did from the Fennell report:
There was no pressure on management to compromise safety.
Those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who read the report were surprised that that sentence was included, particularly as evidence concerning staffing was never heard by the inquiry, as it was ruled out by Mr. Fennell. We await a debate—in Government time, it is to be hoped —on Fennell's recommendations. It is a subject to which we shall certainly return.
As if making a ritual incantation, the Secretary of State and his hon. Friends acknowledge that problems of congestion and safety exist, but say that they are the products of economic growth. They talk about investment levels for road and rail, using statistics that are selective even for this House. The Secretary of State's Private Parliamentary Secretary, as is his duty, laughs. However, when one examines the figures submitted by the Department of Transport to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and finds it staled that investment levels are now at their highest in the history of rail, that is palpably untrue.

Mr. Channon: Mr. Channon indicated dissent.

Mr. Snape: The Secretary of State suggests that he did not say such a thing. Perhaps the most impartial referee to whom we can turn in resolving this vexed question is John Wells. I should not think that he is the same John Wells who was formerly a Conservative Member of Parliament. I refer to Mr. John Wells of the faculty of economics at Cambridge university. In a letter published in the Financial Times on 16 December, he wrote, on the subject of railway investment:


The Secretary of State for Transport's claim that investment in the railways is at an 'all-time high' is simply not correct,—except in current price terms, which is not of any interest. The graph shows that, following the period 1981–84, in which for four consecutive years, the lowest-ever levels of investment since the Second World War were recorded, there has indeed been a strong recovery in railway investment in recent years.

Hon. Members: Hear hear.

Mr. Snape: Before the rattles appear and the banners are waved on the Conservative Benches, may I inform the House that Mr. Wells went on to write:
Nevertheless, railway investment in 1987, (the latest year for which data are available) was considerably below that for the period 1975–79, as well as for 1965–66.
As to the problems posed by success, the Government's own figures for the rate of economic growth in the years since 1979 show that they have by only a single percentage point managed to exceed the rate of economic growth sustained by the last Labour Government in the 1970s. Conservative Back Benchers should not be too impressed by Government propaganda, clever though it may be. The greatest economic growth in this country in recent years —and I had better whisper this softly—occurred under the Administration led by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). Conservative Members dare not mention that. Not even the Secretary of State's PPS, who is now doing his duty, is allowed to laugh at that,but it is the reality.
The Secretary of State announced welcome proposals for railway investment, and mentioned two schemes that have been given his approval. One of them is the Cambridge to King's Lynn scheme, which is welcome but surprising. [Interruption.] I wish that the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), would stop waving his pocket watch around. I am sure it is not a present for long service, although, if it is, perhaps somebody is telling him something.
Bearing in mind that the service from Ely to King's Lynn is only every two hours, it is surprising that that criterion can be accepted for an investment proposal, while Manchester-Blackpool's can be rejected.
The investment proposal that the Government have not mentioned and have not yet approved is one that has been knocking around since last August—to alleviate the overcrowding north of the Thames on the AC electrified lines. It has been submitted and resubmitted and was last resubmitted, I understand, at the beginning of January. It is a £40 million proposal for electricial multiple units on the AC electrified lines.
In any event, for the Government to say that the investment proposals are invariably approved is to ignore the fact that they have been sanitised—to use the in word —until they meet the 7 per cent. return on investment criterion. And the Government put up not a penny; they merely allow British Rail to spend its own cash once they have approved the proposal. This is different, of course, from the way in which they treat proposals generated internally for the road network. Far from welcoming railway investment proposals, the right hon. Gentleman's Department normally tells British Rail to take them away and tickle them up until they meet those established and, in our view, preposterous investment criteria. They

welcome investment proposals in the same way as Dracula welcomed daylight. "It is inevitable, but do not rush it", ought to be the Department's motto.
There is widespread dissatisfaction with standards right across the transport network. It has taken a somewhat truncated debate today to draw the Government's attention to those problems.
The Select Committee on Transport is meeting at the present time, otherwise my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) would have been present in the Chamber and would have hoped to participate in the debate.
Today, as at other times, the Secretary of State shows complacency about what his Department is doing. As my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) reminded us, the reality for millions of people, particularly millions of women, is imprisonment in their homes or fear every time they use the public transport system. That fear ought to take the debate away from the public school, point-scoring standard to which it all too often descends when the right hon. Gentleman speaks. The right hon. Gentleman has palpably failed to improve the nation's transport lifeline, and I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to demonstrate that failure by voting for the Opposition motion.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Michael Portillo): In the few minutes that remain, I will begin where the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) began and confirm that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has indeed taken the lead in calling on the body which exists specifically to bring aviation countries together, the International Civil Aviation Organisation, which is to hold a special ministerial meeting in Montreal next week. At that meeting there will be a discussion on recent sabotage attempts, including Lockerbie. My right hon. Friend will be in attendance and will put forward proposals for improving aviation security world wide. I am sure that that will be welcomed by hon. Members.
I had a feeling that during this debate we would be discussing investment under this Government, so I thought that it would be useful to examine the investment approved by my right hon. Friend in the very brief period that I have been in the Department.
On the railways, we have had 200 EMU vehicles for north of the Thames and Thameslink, 158 Sprinter express vehicles for the provincial services, another 77 vehicles for the Marylebone line as well as the King's Lynn electrification—all in just six months.
Across the board, a £720 million modernisation of the Central line on London Underground has been approved, the Angel station reconstruction costing £40 million has been approved, we have given our consent to the £266 million programme of safety measures being implemented by London Underground and in the past week or so we have approved the purchase of a further 10 vehicles for the Docklands light railway.
For London Buses, we have approved investment of more than £12 million.
One very important point which has not, I believe, been mentioned in the debate is that the disabled have been well catered for during this period. The funding that we have approved for Dial-a-Ride in London is £7…27 million for 1989–9�žan increase of £1 million on the previous year


and 70 per cent. higher than when the GLC had charge of these matters. I was extremely proud to be able to announce recently that all taxis licensed in London after 1 February 1989 will have to be wheelchair accessible.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) said, quite apart from all those projects there are very promising light rail projects throughout the country.
I must say to the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) that this is not some sort of statistical to and fro, as he described it. We are talking about railways, rolling stock, improved comfort and better services, and these can be provided only by the investment that the Government have been making.
The level of London Regional Transport's investment planned for the coming year is a 94 per cent. increase on the investment in 1983 when it was still under the control of the GLC. Taking the Underground alone, the level of investment planned for the coming year represents a doubling in real terms of the 1984–85 figure. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) should certainly bear that in mind.
I must say to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) that we certainly recognise that crime is of great concern and all the rolling stock that has been approved and to which I have just alluded will help to provide better, more secure conditions for people to travel in. The hon. Member will also be aware of the increases in police numbers on London Underground that we have announced.
I am disappointed that we have not heard more from the Opposition about the central London rail study or our booklet "Transport in London", which were published on the same day. I understand their reticence in talking about these things—they are silent because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in his foreword, nails the lie that the Government have no clear policy for transport in London. The study sets out a £1·5 billion programme to upgrade existing lines. That could mean new services, increased station capacity and more trains. It also identifies a case for new railway lines for London—a further £2 billion of investment for the capital. Worst of all for the Opposition, the study was a joint effort by the Department, British Rail and London Underground. There is very little in all that for the Opposition to make political capital.
With regard to safety and recent tragic events, the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) raised about the means of informing next of kin is under discussion by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) has made some trenchant comments on a number of recent tragic disasters and his manner in doing so has sometimes caused raised eyebrows on this side of the House and even on his own side. If he is entirely sincere in pursuing the subject, I find it extraordinary that in drafting the motion for today's debate he mentioned each of the tragedies which are etched on all our minds but omitted any reference to road deaths. Terrible as those tragedies have been, in terms of numbers killed and lives shattered road accidents are a still more horrendous matter. While at King's Cross 31 died, at Clapham 35, at Lockerbie 270 and at Kegworth 47, the number killed on our roads in the year ended September 1988 was 5,010 —a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley made very well. I must tell my right hon. Friend the

Member for Worthing that governors will be fitted to new coaches from 1 April 1989 and to other coaches in the two years thereafter.
The figure of 5,010 was a good one because, if fatalities had risen since 1986 in line with the 10 per cent. increase in road traffic in that period, we could have expected the number to be 910 higher. The reduction has come about largely due to the hard work of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic in setting the objective of reducing casualties by one third by the year 2000, by the stiffer tests for motor cyclists, by the mandatory speed limits at motorway road works and through the battle against drinking and driving. Some of these measures bring no popularity to the Government, but each week 18 people are not killed who without the improvements since 1986 would have been killed. Those people cannot he identified or featured by the press, but the improvement is no less real for that. The more visible and vocal the Opposition support for road safety measures and campaigns, the more we shall believe in their sincerity in addressing all transport safety questions.
I am sure that the House will have seen the response by London Regional Transport and London Underground to the recommendations in the Fennell report. The report was published yesterday, and copies have been placed in the Library. I commend that response to all hon. Members. Nearly all Fennell's recommendations have been accepted. I consider it a serious and responsible response to the King's Cross tragedy, which accepts that matters need to be put right. Many of us have observed the physical measures being taken, such as the stripping out of wood on escalators, but an equally significant amount is being done which cannot be seen. I have in mind the new safety management systems that have been put in place, as well as improved training procedures.
The Government are determined to ensure that the new safety culture continues. To that end, we shall go on receiving regular progress reports and monitoring the progress made by London Regional Transport.
The Opposition are good at complaining about the ills of our transport system—I give them due credit for that
—but when it comes to remedies, all they have to offer are the same old ineffective medicines as before. For congestion they prescribe large doses of central planning, sometimes mixed with free travel—as suggested by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) last night. Their cure for safety problems is to turn a blind eye to inefficiency and to dole out ever larger subsidies. The arguments advanced in support of this approach are specious and the motives behind it transparent.
The most that the Opposition can claim is that as our transport problems are the result of economic growth under a Labour Government there would have been no growth and thus no problems, but that logic will not commend itself to the House. The remedies proposed by the Opposition are quack remedies. They were inappropriate and ineffective 10 years. ago, and age has improved neither their attraction nor their charm.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 210, Noes 305.

Division No. 79]
[7.01 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Foster, Derek


Allen, Graham
Foulkes, George


Alton, David
Fraser, John


Anderson, Donald
Fyfe, Maria


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Galbraith, Sam


Armstrong, Hilary
Galloway, George


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Ashton, Joe
George, Bruce


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Battle, John
Golding, Mrs Llin


Beckett, Margaret
Gould, Bryan


Beith, A. J.
Graham, Thomas


Bell, Stuart
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n amp; R'dish)
Grocott, Bruce


Bermingham, Gerald
Hardy, Peter


Blair, Tony
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Blunkett, David
Haynes, Frank


Boateng, Paul
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Boyes, Roland
Heffer, Eric S.


Bradley, Keith
Henderson, Doug


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hinchliffe, David


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld amp; Kilsyth)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Holland, Stuart


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Home Robertson, John


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Buchan, Norman
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Buckley, George J.
Howells, Geraint


Caborn, Richard
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Callaghan, Jim
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Illsley, Eric


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Ingram, Adam


Canavan, Dennis
Janner, Greville


Cartwright, John
Johnston, Sir Russell


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Clay, Bob
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Clelland, David
Lambie, David


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Lamond, James


Cohen, Harry
Leadbitter, Ted


Coleman, Donald
Leighton, Ron


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Litherland, Robert


Corbett, Robin
Livsey, Richard


Corbyn, Jeremy
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Cousins, Jim
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Cox, Tom
Loyden, Eddie


Crowther, Stan
McAllion, John


Cryer, Bob
McAvoy, Thomas


Cummings, John
McCartney, Ian


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Macdonald, Calum A.


Cunningham, Dr John
McFall, John


Darling, Alistair
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
McKelvey, William


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
McLeish, Henry


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
McNamara, Kevin


Dewar, Donald
McTaggart, Bob


Dixon, Don
McWilliam, John


Doran, Frank
Madden, Max


Douglas, Dick
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Duffy, A. E. P.
Marek, Dr John


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Eadie, Alexander
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Martlew, Eric


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Maxton, John


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Meale, Alan


Fatchett, Derek
Michael, Alun


Faulds, Andrew
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'I amp; Bute)


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Fisher, Mark
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Flannery, Martin
Morgan, Rhodri


Flynn, Paul
Morley, Elliott


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)





Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Snape, Peter


Mullin, Chris
Soley, Clive


Nellist, Dave
Spearing, Nigel


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Steel, Rt Hon David


O'Brien, William
Steinberg, Gerry


O'Neill, Martin
Stott, Roger


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Strang, Gavin


Parry, Robert
Straw, Jack


Patchett, Terry
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Pendry, Tom
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Turner, Dennis


Prescott, John
Vaz, Keith


Radice, Giles
Wall, Pat


Randall, Stuart
Wallace, James


Redmond, Martin
Walley, Joan


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Richardson, Jo
Wareing, Robert N.


Robertson, George
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Robinson, Geoffrey
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Rooker, Jeff
Wigley, Dafydd


Rowlands, Ted
Wilson, Brian


Ruddock, Joan
Winnick, David


Sedgemore, Brian
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Worthington, Tony


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wray, Jimmy


Short, Clare
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Skinner, Dennis



Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Smith, C. (Isl'ton amp; F'bury)
Mr. Martyn Jones and


Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)
Mr. Allen Adams.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Burns, Simon


Alexander, Richard
Burt, Alistair


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Butcher, John


Allason, Rupert
Butler, Chris


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Butterfill, John


Amess, David
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Amos, Alan
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Arbuthnot, James
Carrington, Matthew


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Carttiss, Michael


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Ashby, David
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Aspinwall, Jack
Chapman, Sydney


Atkins, Robert
Chope, Christopher


Atkinson, David
Churchill, Mr


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Baldry, Tony
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Colvin, Michael


Batiste, Spencer
Conway, Derek


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Beggs, Roy
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Bellingham, Henry
Cope, Rt Hon John


Bendall, Vivian
Cormack, Patrick


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Couchman, James


Benyon, W.
Cran, James


Bevan, David Gilroy
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Curry, David


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd amp; Spald'g)


Body, Sir Richard
Day, Stephen


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Dickens, Geoffrey


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Dicks, Terry


Boswell, Tim
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bottomley, Peter
Dunn, Bob


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Durant, Tony


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Dykes, Hugh


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Eggar, Tim


Bowis, John
Emery, Sir Peter


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Evennett, David


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Brazier, Julian
Favell, Tony


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Brown, Michael (Brigg amp; Cl't's)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Browne, John (Winchester)
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Fishburn, John Dudley


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Fookes, Dame Janet


Buck, Sir Antony
Forman, Nigel


Budgen, Nicholas
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)






Forth, Eric
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Knowles, Michael


Fox, Sir Marcus
Knox, David


Franks, Cecil
Lang, Ian


Freeman, Roger
Lawrence, Ivan


French, Douglas
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Fry, Peter
Lee, John (Pendle)


Gale, Roger
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Gardiner, George
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Lightbown, David


Gill, Christopher
Lilley, Peter


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Goodlad, Alastair
Lord, Michael


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
McCrindle, Robert


Gorst, John
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Gow, Ian
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Maclean, David


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Gregory, Conal
Major, Rt Hon John


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Mans, Keith


Grist, Ian
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Grylls, Michael
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Maude, Hon Francis


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mills, Iain


Hampson, Dr Keith
Miscampbell, Norman


Hannam, John
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Mitchell, Sir David


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Moate, Roger


Harris, David
Monro, Sir Hector


Haselhurst, Alan
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Moore, Rt Hon John


Hayward, Robert
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Morrison, Sir Charles


Heddle, John
Moss, Malcolm


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Mudd, David


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Neale, Gerrard


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Nelson, Anthony


Hill, James
Neubert, Michael


Hind, Kenneth
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Holt, Richard
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hordern, Sir Peter
Norris, Steve


Howard, Michael
Oppenheim, Phillip


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Page, Richard


Howarth, G. (Cannock amp; B'wd)
Paice, James


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Patnick, Irvine


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hunter, Andrew
Porter, David (Waveney)


Irvine, Michael
Portillo, Michael


Jack, Michael
Powell, William (Corby)


Jackson, Robert
Price, Sir David


Janman, Tim
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Jessel, Toby
Rathbone, Tim


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Redwood, John


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Renton, Tim


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Rhodes James, Robert


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Riddick, Graham


Key, Robert
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Kilfedder, James
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Knapman, Roger
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)





Roe, Mrs Marion
Thorne, Neil


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Thornton, Malcolm


Rost, Peter
Thurnham, Peter


Rowe, Andrew
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Sackville, Hon Tom
Tracey, Richard


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Tredinnick, David


Sayeed, Jonathan
Trippier, David


Scott, Nicholas
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shaw, David (Dover)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Viggers, Peter


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Shelton, Sir William
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


(Streatham)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Walden, George


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Shersby, Michael
Waller, Gary


Sims, Roger
Walters, Sir Dennis


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Ward, John


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Warren, Kenneth


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Watts, John


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Wells, Bowen


Speller, Tony
Wheeler, John


Squire, Robin
Whitney, Ray


Stanbrook, Ivor
Widdecombe, Ann


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wiggin, Jerry


Steen, Anthony
Wilshire, David


Stern, Michael
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Stevens, Lewis
Winterton, Nicholas


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Wolfson, Mark


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Wood, Timothy


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Woodcock, Mike


Sumberg, David
Yeo, Tim


Summerson, Hugo
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Tapsell, Sir Peter



Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Tellers for the Noes:


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Mr. Stephen Dorrell and


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Mr. John M. Taylor.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, iis amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House expresses its deep concern at the transport tragedies of the last two years of the 'Herald of Free Enterprise', King's Cross, Clapham, Lockerbie, the M1 air disaster and the daily toll of deaths and injuries on our roads, and extends its sympathy to all those affected; applauds the Government's determination that safety and security must remain paramount, and welcomes the urgent steps it has taken to that end; congratulates the Government for bringing about an economic revival which has resulted in record levels of investment in roads and railways, and for recognising that the only way to provide customers with an efficient and safe public transport system is to set demanding objectives fur quality of service and performance; welcomes the Government's record of approving every investment scheme put to it by British Rail and London Regional Transport, and its radical proposals to extend the public transport system in London; congratulates the Government for having recog-nised the limitations of central planning; and calls on the Opposition to acknowledge the legacy of neglect and under-in vestment which (his Government inherited.

Science and Scientific Research

Mr. Jack Straw: I beg to move,
That this House condemns the Government's failures properly to support Britiain's science base, to secure adequate time in the science curriculum and to overcome the crisis in the supply of science teachers, to stem the loss of so many of our ablest scientists by giving teachers in higher education adequate status, pay and research resources, to increase or even to sustain planned levels of expenditure on the science budget after 1989, and to provide the organisation and funding needed to tackle the vital problems of the global environment, the quality of life, and the technological competitiveness of British industry.

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Straw: Science is central to the quality of life in Britain and to our survival as a leading industrial nation. But we spend less of our national income on science, as other countries spend more. We have fewer scientists and engineers. We value and honour them less than do other countries. The consequences are stark.
The sharpest decline of all in our ability to compete with other nations has occurred in our overseas trade in science-based goods. In 1979, we ran a surplus on such trade of over £3 billion. By 1987, it had turned into a deficit of £2 billion. Last year—in one year—the deficit had trebled to over £6·5 billion.
The distinguished American economist Robert Solow won the 1987 Nobel prize for his work on the essential link between science and technology and the growth of the economic and social welfare of a nation. His thesis has sadly and dramatically been proved by the British Government's neglect of the science base and by the dramatic relative decline in our share of world trade and in our international competitiveness.
The superficial stance of the Government is that of self-congratulation and complacency, well illustrated by their amendment today, but the reality is shown by the Secretary of State's failure to publish a long-promised policy statement on a strategy for British science and by the Government's refusal for more than three and half years to provide any Government time in the House of Commons to debate science policy.
The last Government debate on science, in June 1985, predated by over a year the Secretary of State's incarnation as Secretary of State for Education and Science. Today's debate on science, like last year's, has been provided by the Opposition out of its scarce Supply time. But the announcement of this debate brought one modest success, even before its start. It forced the Secretary of State to make up his mind about the allocations to the research councils under the science budget which were announced three months ago in the Chancellor's statement.
In a panic, the Secretary of State would have nothing to say. He rushed out a letter to Sir David Phillips, chairman of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils, last Thursday, a parliamentary question was planted yesterday and a press conference was called this morning to give the news that the pain would not be quite as bad as it had been in previous years.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Baker): If the hon. Gentleman's claim is that I

announced the science allocations as a result of the pressure of the debate this evening—that is the charge, I believe—let me answer it. Last year, I announced the allocations on 13 February and the previous year I announced them on 9 February, so it is quite normal that this year I should announce them on 7 February. The fact that the hon. Gentleman uses that as an argument to attack the Government shows that his criticism of the Government's scientific policy is pettifogging, puerile and pedantic.

Mr. Straw: The Secretary of State is damned by what he did not say. He stood up to deny our charge but failed to do so—he simply gave a series of dates. He called his press conference this morning because we called the debate and he was forced into making his announcement today. The coincidence is too acute for even the Secretary of State to deny. That is by no means the gravamen of our charges; it is merely one of them. It is an illustration that the Government are ashamed of their own record, as is shown by the fact that they have refused to debate it for about four years.
Those of us who chart the Secretary of State's progress know that, although he might be an elegant user of language, he murders statistics when it suits him. He has claimed that there has been a substantial increase in resources for the science budget. He said that it was 26 per cent. more in real terms than in 1979–80, and 10 per cent. more than in 1988–89.
There has, we accept, and as we welcomed at the time, been an increase over previous plans for next year's science budget. Without it there would, in the words of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils last May, have been:
very substantial reductions in the volume of scientific activity funded by the research councils
At the time, the board said that it viewed the "relative decline"—its words—of British science with "considerable concern", and called for an injection of a minimum of almost £380 million over three years.
Even with some double-counting and juggling, the most that the Secretary of State can identify is £300 million over three years. Next year, because of prior earmarking, only £75 million will be available to the science base compared with the minimum of £97 million sought by the ABRC.
In the following years, the picture is more dismal. No wonder that the Secretary of State has been trying to hide away from debate.
The Daily Telegraph, of all papers, on the day after the public expenditure White Paper was announced, together with another press notice from the Secretary of State claiming an increase in the science budget, reported that
cuts in the science budget
were disclosed in the plans for the Department of Education and Science. If the Secretary of State could not even convince his friends in The Daly Telegraph, it is not surprising that he has wholly failed to convince the scientific community.
The point emphasised by the ABRC in its latest pronouncement is that the Secretary of State's figures imply a 3 per cent. reduction in real terms, after allowing for inflation. As the ABRC states in a document published today, those figures
imply a significant reduction in the volume of science which the Councils can support".
Those are the figures that the Secretary of State was bragging about this morning.
In its report published today, the ABRC expresses its gratitude to the Secretary of State, and I do not blame it. One of the worst aspects of the Government's parsimonious record on science is the way in which the scientific community has been browbeaten into a belief that funding will—in the fashionable jargon—have to exist at a "steady state", in which the horizons and expectations of the science community have been lowered.
Set against last year's promise of real decline, this year's budget has come as a disproportionate relief.
In its May 1988 document, the ABRC reported that the United Kingdom's share of world scientific output and influence was declining. It said that this
was largely because UK output".
of scientific endeavour, as measured by data on publications and citations,
had remained fairly constant at a time when the world total has increased significantly.
The Secretary of State's advisory board said:
Some countries—notably United States of America, France and West Germany—have increased scientific output and then maintained their world share whilst Japan has markedly improved on its low share.
At best, this latest budget and announcements will simply maintain the slow, relative decline in Britain's science base. The science budget is only one part of overall Government investment in research. Last February the British Medical Journal reported that
as a percentage of gross domestic product, Britain already spends less than all other countries belonging to the OECD, and is spending less as other countries spend more.
The Government are typically self-congratulatory about their record over the past 10 years, but it is a poor record compared with that of other countries.
The Government have failed to understand that if we want to keep up with other countries, let alone beat them, we must put an increasing share of gross domestic product—of national income—into science, not a static or declining share. The figures show that, taking increases in national income spent on research in 16 countries since 1978, Britain's increase is twelfth. Its increase is only half that of France and one quarter that of Japan. No wonder that an ever-growing percentage of equipment used in British science laboratories is made abroad—usually in Japan.
The wild claims of the Secretary of State contrast with the figures issued by the Cabinet Office which show that total research expenditure by civil Departments, excluding the research councils, is down from £1,004 million in the early 1980s to £933 million in 1989–90, at 1985–86 prices. They show that total civil research spending is down from £2,217 million to £2,158 million. Separate analyses from the Cabinet Office show that between 1986–87 and 1990–91 there would be a 6 per cent. decline in Government investment in civil research and development, while our gross domestic product was expected to grow by 8 per cent. The author of the BMJ article concluded that
objective indicators show that British basic science is in decline",
and that
most scientists whom he met considered the main cause of the decline to be the decline in government funding for research".
In early March, the Government will host an international conference on the global environment. A further speech from the Prime Minister about how green she is is promised. We welcomed the sudden conversion of the Prime Minister to matters environmental and her

stated support for basic science after years of neglect under this Government. However, like many outside organisations we are healthily sceptical about the reality of the Government's commitment to the environment, especially when it is set against the £30 million cut in the Agricultural and Food Research Council's budget, the 120 jobs shortly to be cut in the Natural Environment Research Council's projects, and the switch in research resources from Wales to the south of England.
Many involved with research into the global environment, in which there has been some improvement in investment, are sceptical about the Government's record. For example, the United Kingdom stratospheric ozone review group, in its second report, argued that Britain has failed to take advantage of the lead given by the British Antarctic Survey's discovery in 1985 of a hole in the ozone layer. It said:
the promotion and proper resourcing of fundamental research in this area of major environmental concern has been quite inadequate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) will deal in more detail with research into the global environment. I shall describe the state of the paleoecology research unit at University College, London, which my hon. Friend and I visited earlier today. Its condition neatly encapsulates the imbalance and lack of strategy behind Government science policy.
The work of the unit is goal-driven, applied research about acid rain, covering the history, cause, rate arid extent of lake acidification in the United Kingdom and Scandinavia. For this, the unit's officials make plain that they have been "very well funded" by the Department of the Environment, the Royal Society and the NERC, with total support in excess of £1 million.
However, in parallel with the increase in applied research funding, the unit says:
the pure research base required to develop basic techniques for the future has all but disappeared … There has been a continued cutting away of infrastructure, especially of technical staff.
It is exceptionally difficult to keep highly motivated and highly skilled research staff together when such staff have such incredible insecurity. Only one person—the director of the unit, Dr. Rick Batterbee—has security of tenure. It goes on to say that
the availability of such staff is the only means of servicing applied research problems.
The unit goes on to say that
it is utterly demoralising to be faced year after year with internal cuts and savings targets.
Most serious of all, no one in this unit is now engaged on curiosity-led pure research to develop new techniques for the applied research of the future. [Interruption.] I think that the Secretary of State is muttering that the purpose of this unit is to do applied research. Yes, but it could not be doing applied research today unless the same people had done pure research yesterday, and it now has nobody to do the pure research into new techniques for measuring, for example, acidification in lakes by which we may find some solution to the problem of acid rain for the future.
Moreover, the income generated by contracts, by applied research, is now having to be used to subsidise teaching and other basic running costs of the institution. This undermining of the basis of pure science research arises partly from the increased calls on the science budget, the switch towards applied reseach—the switch, for example, to research into the
global environment and into


AIDS, which has to be paid for out of the science budget —and from the fact that relative price inflation is higher in high-tech areas than in the general economy. But it arises also from the squeeze in the core funding of universities —something that the Secretary of State never takes into account when he congratulates himself on the general increase in funding in the science budget, through the squeeze on the dual funding system, which is supposed to support the laboratories, equipment, technicians and core academic staff of our science base.
This year's public expenditure White Paper announced, in paragraph 42, that the Government now intend to pursue in, the university sector,
a separation between funding for teaching and funding for research".
The Government have also announced some interdisciplinary research centres and has encouraged the University Grants Committee to pursue subject-based reviews such as the Edwards review on physics and the Stone report on chemistry, with the consequence that some universities may end up with neither chemistry nor physics departments.
Two years ago the ABRC published recommendations for a strategy for science, which gave one view—its view —about the future course of science policy, including the controversial recommendations for the categorisation of universities into research, teaching, and research and teaching institutions. A response from the Government —their own policy for science—was promised by the Secretary of State last year. That is what he told us in the debate on 29 February. Even as late as November he was telling his Cabinet colleagues that the document would be published at the end of last year. Now the public expenditure White Paper tells us that it is not expected to be published at least until the summer.
I ask the Secretary of State to give the reason for this delay. Is it, as I understand it, because of a serious conflict between the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State over the direction of science policy?

Mr. Derek Fatchett: He has not won that one yet.

Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend says that he has not won one yet. The conflicts between him and the Prime Minister and her policy unit are notorious.
If that is not the reason for the delay, what accounts for the extraordinary limbo in which science strategy now finds itself? Why has the Secretary of State broken the undertaking that he gave to this House last year to publish a policy for science during the course of 1988?
The Secretary of State must not delude himself about the state of our universities. When the head of a well-funded research unit like the one at University College London spoke of a situation being utterly demoralising he spoke for the whole of the university community. Many good academics are simply voting with their feet, as are many recruits. There is a brain drain. Of course we accept that that is difficult to quantify, but the study published by the Royal Society and the Fellowship of Science and Engineering Policy Studies Unit in 1987 on the migration of scientists and engineers to and from the United Kingdom said that, although quantitatively there were similar flows across the Atlantic, qualitatively the

picture was very different. The net loss of talent was regarded as having an adverse effect on British research, particularly in universities.
If the Secretary of State requires more evidence, let me quote from the New York Times, which on 22 November published a major article entitled
British Brain Drain Enriches U.S. Colleges".
It said:
In the last five years perhaps 200 British professors, driven by hard times in the British higher education system and enticed by irresistible financial and scholarly opportunities in the United States, have weathered the pain of moving themselves and their families across an ocean and settling in a strange terrain.
The British brain drain began early this decade but has become a hemorrhage in the last five years, and many of the emigrants blame the Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's Government for the exodus.
The author goes on to say:
They are part of a migration that may be the largest single influx into this country from a single source since Jewish professors were forced to leave Germany and Austria in the 1930's.
The article quotes David Cannadine, a Cambridge historian, who went to Columbia university in September. [Interruption.] The Under-Secretary seeks to trivialise the brain drain by saying that that man had an American wife.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson): He has an
American wife.

Mr. Straw: The Under-Secretary seeks to trivialise the brain drain by saying that he has an American wife. Yes, he does have an American wife, and since the Under-Secretary of State raises that matter I should say that for five years Mr. Cannadine carried on at the University of Cambridge trying to maintain his scholarship and his interest at that university, and he will say, as will many others, that he has been forced to leave because of lack of opportunity in this country. What the Under-Secretary needs to do is not just to make cheap remarks like that but to look to the reality of the brain drain and a serious shift of people of quality across the Atlantic.
If the hon. Gentleman does not believe that, let him look at the figures for vacancies for professorial posts. Recent studies, including one by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, reported that 36 per cent. of key professorial posts were vacant. Moreover, there are many anecdotes from heads of institutions to suggest that, whilst in the end they accept what is offered, the quality of many people appointed to senior posts is significantly lower than they would have wished.
All that is confirmed by the Secretary of State's own adviser, Sir David Phillips, who said that Great Britain contributes more scientists and engineers to the United States' technical work force than almost all other European countries put together, and by Sir George Porter, who, in his lecture last year, said:
We are particularly well-endowed with such bright young people in this country and their loss is the saddest and most deplorable result of the philosophy of the present time
of this Government. We recall that only eight months ago Sir George Porter said:
The most tangible evidence of third-word science is the early preparation and export of outstanding scientists and of the production of scientific works.
Sir George added:
We in this country seem well prepared to join the third world of science.

Mr. Spencer Batiste: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the most important incentives to remain in Britain is a low tax rate comparable to that of other countries? If he seeks to redress the brain drain that he describes, will he support further reductions in tax in Britain?

Mr. Straw: Most British academics are so poorly paid that they do not get into the higher tax brackets. Moreover, what has happened to the brain deain in this decade is proof, if ever it were needed, that relative tax rates have nothing to do with the flight from British universities to the United States. As the tax rates have gone up, the flight from this country has increased. [Interruption.] If there is any correlation, it is the reverse.
Central to the problem of recruiting and retaining the best is the issue not of tax rates but of university pay. On simple grounds of national self-interest, let alone the clearest grounds of justice, university teachers have an overwhelming case. Every other group of university employees and every other public sector group has had a pay rise in 1988–89 but not university academics. The consequence is that their pay lags 20 per cent. behind their comparators.
The Financial Times reported today, however, that the Government were likely to reject the claim from the Association of University Teachers and the call from the union and the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals for further funding. Will the Government let the claim fester, or will they take action to settle it? If the Government's record on funding academic science is so wonderful, why are our science-based universities unable to find the minimum funds to pay the increase which they accept is necessary?
Without a supply of well qualified science students, this country will slip into that third world of science of which Sir George Porter spoke so eloquently. Once again the Secretary of State's attitude to science in the curriculum and to the supply of science teachers is complacent neglect. Of course, we know what he will say. What matters is what he does or has not done. He has rejected the advice of his own expert science working party. He has downgraded science in the national curriculum. He has created a two-tiered science curriculum which, for those following single science, will snuff out the chance of a scientific-based education and training beyond 16. By rejecting the broadening of A levels, as recommended by his committee under Professor Higginson, he has snuffed out the chance of many more students taking science at a higher level.
The Association for Science Education was correct in saying that the Secretary of State's proposals for two-tier science would cut off significant numbers of students from science-related jobs and undermine our competitiveness even further.
Worse, the Secretary of State is downgrading science in schools for the least acceptable reason: that there are growing shortages of teachers. He is unwilling to take effective measures, such as paying teachers more, to deal with the shortages.

Mr. Ian Taylor: On the requirement of finding teachers in these disciplines, will the hon. Gentleman add that regional pay negotiations should be paramount?

Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman should read the recommendations of the interim advisory committee last year which, in discussing the problems of subject shortages, ruled that out.
The wastage of teachers is chilling. Three out of 10 people who qualify fail to enter teaching in the following year; four in 10 who enter teaching leave within five years. Even on the Secretary of State's wildly optimistic assessment of teacher shortages, by 1995 there will be a 5 per cent, shortfall of mathematics teachers, a 14 per cent shortfall of physics teachers and an 18 per cent. shortfall of chemistry teachers. The Secretary of State knows that the shortages exist. That is why he has insulated his favoured city technology colleges by allowing their teachers to be paid more than they would get elsewhere in the local authority sector, but he has prevented any general increase in teachers' pay beyond the rate of inflation by the cash limit which he has imposed upon the recommendations of the interim advisory committee.
We have to add to the teacher shortages, which will deny many children a decent education, and to the underfunding of academic pay the prospect of student loans. They will plainly deter students from following the rigour and uncertainty of an academic career in favour of the richer rewards of the City or accountancy.
As a highly developed nation we should have the wit to allow the pursuit of science for its own sake because knowledge and education are good and because so many scientific advances with direct application today have been derived from scientists being permitted the space and time to follow a hunch. DNA, electricity, X-rays, penicillin, nuclear energy, radio and television, electronics, photography, sound recording, quantum mechanics, transistors, super conductors and lasers were all discovered unexpectedly, sometimes by accident, by scientists engaged in pure research.
It is on the foundation of pure research and of basic science that applied research development has to be built. At the turn of the year the deputy chief executive of British Aerospace said that there has to be a major decline in research and development to stop the decline in medium and low technology business; the Financial Times has complained of a declining science base; the head of venture research in BP has proclaimed that in today's world stagnation in science investment can only lead to oblivion. Einstein wrote in 1936:
Intellectual decline brought on by a shallow materalism is a far greater menace to the survival of a society than numerous external foes who threaten its existence with violence.
There is no materialism more shallow than that of the Governmment or the Secretary of State. The Government's science policy, in so far as they have one, is for stagnation. We do not need stagnation; we need imagination. We do not need shallow materialism; we need vision. Above all, we need a comprehension that we will have a decent future tomorrow only if we invest in it today.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Baker): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
applauds the steps taken by the Government to sustain and improve still further the strength and quality of science in the United Kingdom, noting inparticular: the inclusion of science as part of the new national curriculum, measures to


improve the supply of science teachers in schools, recent evidence that eminent scientists are returning to this country, the 26 per cent. real terms increase in the science budget since 1979, and the allocation of extra funds for research to tackle problems of the global environment, to improve the quality of life and to underpin the technological competitiveness of British industry.
It is a supreme irony that the Opposition should have chosen to debate the support for science and scientific research on the very day, planned some time ago, when I have announced the allocation of an extra £300 million to the research councils and other bodies. In the two years in which I have been responsible for this part of the expenditure of my Department I have always announced the allocation in the first fortnight of February. Today happens to be in the first fortnight of February. To begin to mount his attack upon our policy on that basis set the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) off on the wrong foot straight away. When I interrupted him, his arguments did not improve. They remained pettifogging, pedantic and puerile.
What I announced bears repeating. The science budget in 1989–90 will be £115 million, or 16 per cent. higher than it is this year. Since the Government came into office, they have increased the science budget by over 26 per cent. in real terms. These are very substantial sums of money. It is this record that the Opposition are attacking. When they were last in office, between 1975–76 and 1979–80, they did not increase the science budget in real terms by a single penny. Yet we have had the attack which the hon. Member for Blackburn has launched on us.
As hon. Members know, I.depend upon the Advisory Board for the Research Councils for advice on the size, composition and allocation of the resources announced today. The ABRC is chaired by Sir David Phillips, to whom the hon. Gentleman referred. He is an eminent scientist in his own right in cell research and, like the whole board, is well known for taking an independent view. Sir David reported the board's view to me in the following terms:
We were delighted by the substantial increases in the Government's plans for the Science Budget and greatly encouraged by what you had to say about the importance to the nation of maintaining excellence in basic and strategic science.
He also said:
This year's PES settlement provides an excellent foundation for the development of UK science.
Others too have commented favourably. Even Professor Noble of Save British Science expressed his agreement with the board's view that the extra money would do much to raise morale in the scientific community.

Mr. Simon Hughes: If the commitment is so profound, will the Secretary of State explain why, for the following two years, there is a real reduction in the budget in the Government's expenditure figures produced only weeks ago?

Mr. Baker: I expected that question because I got it at the press conference this morning. The simple answer is that I was asked to increase, as I have done, the actual science budget by some £350 million over the next three years. I have increased the base. I will receive further advice on the requirements for the next two years. I will receive additional advice from the ABRC and others. The hon. Gentleman knows very well that various proposals

will be put to me and that I shall put them to my colleagues. He must wait to see in a year's time how well I fare. I assure him that the commitment of the Government is absolute and complete. This is a tremendous increase in real terms in the amount of money.
That leads me to another point. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) is falling into the mistake which the Opposition Front Bench always makes. The Opposition are preoccupied with input. Their reaction is that we only get good science by putting in more and more money. They are considering the input all the time. I have said already that we recognie that we have to have a substantial investment in the scientific base for laboratories, equipment and the retention of good research. I shall come to the brain drain later.

Mr. David Nicholson: On the subject of inputs, has my right hon. Friend noticed that on this Opposition Supply day, on a subject on which the Opposition presumably place a great deal of importance, there are no more than eight Labour Back Benchers present in the Chamber plus one Liberal, and they are almost outnumbered by those on the Opposition Front Bench?

Mr. Baker: It shows their fleeting and transitory interest in this matter.
I would like to deal not just with the inputs but with what all this money is buying, because I have to justify this expenditure against competing expenditure claims from other Departments. I remind the House of some of the outstanding scientific achievements over the last few years. The Science and Engineering Research Council, in its work in astronomy, leads the world. Its superb new telescopes—a millimetre wave telescope in Hawaii and an optical telescope in La Palma£are now probing deeper and deeper into space. United Kingdom particle physicists, supported by SERC, contributed to the discovery of the W and Z bosons in 1983, which established the unification of two of the fundamental forces of nature. This is absolutely world-lead science into particle physics and into physics itself, which is often called the queen of sciences.
Then there is nuclear magnetic resonance, and the House will know of the success we have had in this area and of the outstanding work that has been done in our laboratories. The Oxford enzyme group has developed high field spectrometers in collaboration with Oxford Instruments, and Oxford Instruments has been able to capture a large proportion of the world markets for high field magnets required for commercial NMR machines.
When I visited Nottingham university a few weeks ago I was told that Nottingham and Aberdeen universities both get £1 million a year from their royalties on earnings as a result of NMR research. Our scientists at Cambridge —this is probably one of the most significant breakthroughs—have over the past five years done pioneering work on protein engineering, resulting in the successful design of novel proteins. I am advised that they have enormous potential implications for new forms of therapy as well as for non-medical applications.
Can I say how this extra money is going to be spent? The first requirement I see for this fund is that there should be concentration on basic and strategic science. Near market research should be funded more and more by the private sector. My concern is with the science base, with


the excellence of science which produces that sort of breakthrough, world-lead science. To talk in terms of British science being in the second division is absolutely absurd; in area after area it is not.
To reinforce the science base I have allocated a further £49 million to the new interdisciplinary research centres over the next three years. This will increase the number of IRCs to 17, covering areas of science such as high temperature super-conductivity, animal genome research and surface science.

Mr. Straw: It was Sir George Porter, the president of the Royal Society, who said that British science was slipping into the third world. Is the Secretary of State describing Sir George Porter's claim as absurd?

Mr. Baker: I said that there was a danger of that happening. I actually think that there is little danger of this happening because of the excellence one sees in British science. When I visit other countries—and I will come back to the brain drain in a moment—the attraction of research units in this country is very considerable and is pulling back a lot of people from other countries. I will come back to that later.
Can I stress the importance of the initial "I" of "IRC". What is striking about research now is that when I go round medical laboratories I find not only doctors doing research; I find a whole range of disciplines: geneticists, molecular biologists, physicists, research chemists and psychologists. Much of today's research only hangs together because of its interdisciplinary nature.
It is also necessary to exploit in full the many new and existing scientific opportunities to which the ABRC has drawn attention. I am providing over £85 million over three years to key directed programmes for research recommended by the board. They include, for example, the search for the constituent elements of the human genome. This is the genetic chain which will unravel the genetic mysteries of life. Secondly, they include a major international programme to study the influence of the oceans on world climate. These programmes touch all our lives in one way or another.
I have been especially concerned to increase the funding of basic curiosity-driven research. Such work is absolutely fundamental, because when investing in scientific research we cannot know with any certainty whether it will be successful. We have to provide a background: a sufficient number of laboratories, institutions and teams of people to draw upon. However, no one can ever be sure which group will make the breakthrough. Therefore, in the money I have announced today, I am glad to say that we have restarted the Royal Society's small grants scheme, which will help in funding individual small projects, and we are funding a 25 per cent. increase in the Royal Society's research fellowship schemes, which support some of our outstanding and particularly young scientists, people in their late 20s and early 30s. In addition, we are increasing the number of research studentships which the three research councils, AFRC, MRC and SERC, can award.
The Government is earmarking new money—and the hon. Gentleman pushed this aside—for major national programmes, such as research to deal with the scourge of AIDS. This is additional money. I have also earmarked money to support the particle physics work at CERN in Switzerland.
The allocation allows for the reorganisation of the research council institutes themselves. They have been pressing these plans for some time, and I have allocated £37 million over the next three years.
I would now like to come to the global environment and research on oceans and climate. The funds which I have allocated today represent a very substantial increase indeed in global environment research. Britain is making an outstanding contribution to this. We have a unit called the British Antarctic Survey, which is in the forefront of world science. It was this group of scientists, operating from the Antarctic bases, which identified the hole in the ozone layer in 1985–86. As a result of this, we have decided to build upon this work. The House will know that last year I invested in the new ship, the "James Clark Ross." This year there will be a new gravel airstrip and a larger aircraft to take the scientists out to the ice floes of Antarctica. Britain is making a significant world contribution. We should all recognise, as I am sure Labour Members do, how outstanding this work is.
I have said that I am providing extra funds for the survey this year, but the range of global environmental research goes beyond Antarctica. It covers truly global matters: atmospheric circulation, the movement of the oceans around the world, the water cycle, the chemical fluxes. All of these different matters are covered. It also covers more local and regional phenomena such as acid rain, deforestation, pollution of regional seas and soil infertility and erosion.
I emphasise the international nature of this. One cannot do this sort of research alone. This country is involved in one group after another. First, there is the universities global atmospheric project, which is developing global climate models. I apologise to the House for these long, technical titles, but they do actually describe the work rather well. Next, there is the biochemical ocean flux study. This study is examining the transfer of carbon from the atmosphere, the excessive amount of carbon in the atmosphere which is causing the greenhouse effect. It is transferred through the surface of the sea into the various organisms, which put on body weight and then die and drop to the seabed. This is a process of transferring carbon from the atmosphere to the seabed. We simply do not know enough about this process. I have explained it in very broad terms. I have to explain it in terms that even Opposition Members will understand. This is a major study of course, involving, other countries.
Then there is the world ocean circulation experiment. Again, that is connected with the world climate research programme. Then there is the ocean drilling project, which NERC is involved in. All of these are major international projects.

Mr. Jim Cousins: The weak point of the Minister's argument is the connection between the matters to which he is referring and actual technological application. Most of the nuclear magnetic resonance machinery in our hospitals is imported from America. Will the Secretary of State assure the House that at least the order for the ship which he is proposing to commission for the British Antarctic Survey will be placed in a British shipyard?

Mr. Baker: That is for the NERC to decide. I understand that it is assessing bids for that order at the moment. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would not put


down the British scientific instruments industry, as quite a lot of NMR magnets are made in Britain. Perhaps he should talk about those a bit more instead of trying to say that equipment is always imported. We have a strong scientific instrument industry, although inevitably there is a considerable amount of international research.
The hon. Member for Blackburn made great play of the brain drain. He said that there is a substantial flow of bright, intelligent scientists away from Britain. The Royal Society report last year found it difficult to show that there was very much of a brain drain. Indeed, the Financial Times, which follows such matters very closely, called it a brain trickle.
Only last week, the chairman of the University Grants Committee, Sir Peter Swinnerton-Dyer, who has been conducting a large survey on earth sciences, said that in earth sciences alone he has been notified that 13 senior ex-patriots—seven of professorial rank—are coming back to Britain this year. The chairman of the Scientific Engineering Research Council, Professor Mitchell, sent me a list of some 16 senior research scientists—11 of whom are professors—who are coming back to Britain this year. Therefore, some quality scientists are coming back. One would expect that because the base is interesting and there is an attractive climate for scientific research in Britain.
It is not just a question of British scientists coming back to Britain; many overseas scientists wish to work here. Only this morning I was at a presentation of awards ceremony and I met a young American petroleum scientist who is working at Heriot Watt university. He explained to us why he was here. He had been offered a job by Texas university but he refused and chose Heriot Watt on the strength of the scientific base of that very good university and its particular strength in petroleum sciences. Therefore, the picture is much rounder than the impression given by the hon. Member for Blackburn. There is a flow both ways. What I find so attractive about the reports from the research councils is the fact that people of quality are now coming back. That is very important.
I shall now reply to some of the other points raised by the hon. Member for Blackburn. He asked me to reply to the ABRC document. His article in The Times yesterday summarised his speech rather well. Indeed, it was rather better than his speech. It gave me an idea of what he was going to say and it was an interesting article. I wonder whether as a result of writing an article in The Times the hon. Gentleman will resign or leave the Opposition Front Bench. Last week, the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) was sacked within 24 hours of working for Mr. Rupert Murdoch's televison station. But apparently members of the Shadow Cabinet do not have to leave if they write for Mr. Murdoch's newspaper. That is an example of the inconsistency in the behaviour and practices of the Opposition.
In answer to some of the hon. Gentleman's specific points about the way forward, I have already dealt with several of the matters that the ABRC's strategic advice document asked me to deal with last year. It asked for greater funds and we have provided that this year in the £300 million that I announced today. It also asked for greater selectivity in research so that it could concentrate money on some of the better units. It recommended

dividing the universities into R, T and X categories. I rejected that in a speech I made in Oxford last October, but we wish to achieve greater selectivity by different means. It also asked us to concentrate and improve the management of our research councils. We are doing that and they will receive £37 million in this settlement.
Later this year I envisage bringing out a paper reporting on all those developments. It will also deal with matters that are still under discussion, the proposal to divide research and teaching in universities so that we know how much is being spent on research and how much is being spent on teaching, not only in sciences but throughout the universities. It will also deal with proposals about the future organisation of the research councils, which raise very important matters indeed. The past few years have seen considerable changes in the organisation of science and we should be considering again the organisation within Government and the organisation of the research councils.

Mr. Straw: Since the Secretary of State promised that the policy document would be produced last year, and would be available by last November at the latest, what accounts for the delay of eight or nine months?

Mr. Baker: Several of the matters with which I have already dealt. The hon. Gentleman could not have been listening to me. Part and parcel of the delay are the extra funding, the selectivity of R, T and X, the organisation of the research councils, the separation of research and teaching in universities and one outstanding matter—how much money should be transferred from the UGC to the research councils, and current proposals about the reorganisation of the research councils. Those important matters need to be considered.
In conclusion, since 1979 there has been a substantial rise in real resources of 26 per cent. in the basic science budget. As I said, that compares with no increase whatsoever when the Labour party was in power. There was absolutely no increase in real terms between 1976 and 1980.

Mr. Straw: rose—

Mr. Baker: There was an increase in the very first year until the IMF came knocking on the door and the economic policies—

Mr. Straw: rose—

Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman should look at the figures from 1976 when the IMF said that there should be no more spending. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to say that there was an increase in real terms, I say to him, look what you did to the universities when you were in office. You cut the spending in the universities—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The Secretary of State must not hold me responsible for such things.

Mr. Baker: You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, had no hand in such villainy and destruction. It was them. They did it. They cut the spending on the universities by 18 per cent. in real terms. Where do all the scientists work? They work in the universities. The Opposition cut university spending by 18 per cent. and we have increased it by 17 per cent. in real terms. The reason is that we run the economy successfully


and we can afford it. They ran the economy hopelessly and as a result spending on everything, including good things, was cut.
It was said earlier that people are not attracted by tax rates and that people will not come back. Many people will be coming back to a Britain with a standard rate of tax of 25p in the pound and a top rate of tax of 40p in the pound. When the Opposition left office the top rate of tax was 98p in the pound. Their present policies would take them back to it. As Conservative Members will recognise, the success which we are celebrating tonight of the increase in the science budget is based on the economic success of the country and the increased profitability of British industry which has allowed us to expand and develop the scientific base in our country. That is why the House should reject this footling motion.

Mr. Alun Michael: One could comment on any specific element of the motion, but I wish to concentrate on the need for organisation and funding to tackle the vital problems of the global environment. The Government's failure in this respect is highlighted by their attack on environmental research in Wales. The Secretary of State's tributes to the success of scientists and research workers are well deserved, but they come ill from the representative of a Government who have failed to support that work. At present we are experiencing the asset-stripping of environmental research in Wales. That is bad for Wales, bad for the United Kingdom and bad for the international community. It gives the lie to any suggestion that the Government have any real interest in scientific research or in the environment.
In Wales we deplore the Government's neglect. I will give three illustrations of our worries. Two of them are important in an international context as well as in Wales. Research Vessel Services at Barry and the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology research station at Bangor have shared the experience of seeing their share of any research council money decline during the years of Conservative government. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) and I have failed to get sensible answers from Ministers, especially about the situation at Barry, or any answer at all from the Prime Minister. Written answers today show something of the budgetary decline that we are experiencing. In 1979 Bangor took 0·69 per cent. of the budget. By last year it was 0·5 per cent. and the Minister is not sure how much it will be this year. In the case of Barry, it is 0·44 per cent. of the budget. By 1988 it was down to 5·88 per cent. and in 1989–90 it will be 5·31 per cent.
The employment of staff in those vital establishments has also shown a dramatic fall. In 1979, there were 44 full-time staff at Bangor, but that was reduced to 34 in 1988 and in 1989 there are only 26 staff. In the case of Research Vessel Services at Barry, in 1981 there were 206 staff and in 1988 the number had been reduced to 165. No significant change is expected in 1989, but it can expect some significant change as a result of the announcement made today that the services are to be closed down.
The implications for Welsh universities are dramatic. Taken together, they represent the destruction of two viable and internationally recognised centres of environmental research at a cost to Wales of reduced academic

capabilities and job losses in areas of high unemployment. The university of Wales is already in a desperate financial state which is being paid for with cuts in course options, job losses and amalgamations. The establishment of the new unit at Bangor must be seen in the context of the botanical and zoological departments at that university "amalgamating" into a smaller department of biology, and the long-term plans to begin the amalgamation of departments at Bangor and Aberystwyth along the lines of the reorganisation at Cardiff. Those plans can only have the same effect of reducing student places and course options and will have effects on the scientific activities and the ethos and environment around those towns.
The head of the new biology department at the university college of North Wales complained that environmental research in Wales has now been put back to the position that it occupied in the 1950s. Is that not truly deplorable? It is now already a year since the staff of the research station at Bangor were informed that the Natural Environment Research Council was closing the station and setting up a small unit.
The situation at Bangor has unfortunate parallels with the situation in other parts of the country, such as the treatment of staff at the Institute of Marine Biology at Aberdeen. The Natural Environment Research Council decided to move the group to the Scottish marine station at Oban and prepared accommodation there costing £100,000. Months passed, but no decision was made to move the staff and in October the remaining nine staff at Aberdeen were made redundant.
At Bangor, no agreement has been signed with the university college of North Wales and there is little communication between management and staff, although promises were made. Building costs are estimated at £90,000 and will possibly reach £130,000, although the Natural Environment Research Council has only £30,000 available. The staff are becoming concerned that, because of the delays, NERC will repeat what it has done at Aberdeen and make all the staff redundant. The future—far from being a new start—is bleak for the staff and, more importantly, for environmental research.
The situation at Bangor has to be linked with that developing in Barry, where the Research Vessel Services base is also threatened with closure. Today that threat became actuality. The base was opened in 1972 with just 15 staff. The Secretary of State seems amused at that news. The announcement was made in a way typical of the Government, who announce only what they want the public to hear and when they want the public to hear it. The press heard about the future of RVS Barry at 11 am, but the staff were not told until 3 pm. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West and I are still waiting for a reply from the Prime Minister and others on these matters and, no doubt, we shall wait a long time for a satisfactory one. The decision must be changed because it is irrational and wrong.
The base employs almost 200 staff and on the vessel whose research voyages it supports there is a range of disciplines such as navigation, communications, datalogging, processing, biology, geology, geophysics and physical oceanography. Its clients include 14 British and two American universities, eight institutes and Government Departments and three American institutes. Over the years, it has developed a coherent package of ocean-going and shore-based research skills personnel and equipment, and the staff are proud of that achievement.
Yet the Secretary of State wants to close it down. There are strategic considerations too. The vessels leaving Barry have immediate access to open water, which is not the case at Southampton, where the Government apparently wish to relocate the base. According to a written answer that I received today, the cost of creating the relevant new facility at Southampton is about £21 million over four years, at 1988–89 prices. The savings offset are assumed —only assumed—to reach £11 million. That is a waste of at least £10 million which could be given to the essential work of environmental research. I appeal to the Secretary of State and to Ministers to leave the RVS at Barry in south Wales where it is doing a good job.
Earlier, the Secretary of State claimed credit on behalf of the Government for the Antarctic survey, but he failed to mention the money being double-counted because it is in the NERC budget and ring-fenced by the Government, so it is hardly disposable income available for use in the United Kingdom. On the other hand, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State confirmed to me yesterday that the total cost of a major and vital refit for the RRS Discovery is about £10 million at current prices. He added:
It will be for the NERC to determine its priorities, both in 1989 and later years, in the light of available resources." —[Official Report, 6 February 1989; Vol. 146, c. 464.] 
The Government are responsible for resources and the Government are responsible for the pattern of work and it is misleading and irresponsible to suggest that an outside body or quango rather than the Government is taking the decision. It is cowardice on the part of the Government not to accept responsibility for their decisions. Asked how many jobs would be shed at the NERC establishment in 1989, the Minister said that 160 posts, the majority in marine sciences, are to be shed in the financial year to March 1989. Thirty-eight staff will be made compulsorily redundant, the remainder having been shed through voluntary redundancy. The Minister said that he understands that further posts will be lost in the next financial year, although it is hoped to limit those to 60; the locations of the posts concerned are not yet known. What an admission of failure that is.
My third example is the need for research and action in respect of low-level radiation and safe means of disposal of radioactive waste. That research should be acted upon for the protection of the public. The Secretary of State for Wales, who is neither present nor represented this evening, has unaccountably decided to allow low-level radioactive waste from a local firm to be dumped on a council tip in my constituency. Previously such waste had to be taken to British Nuclear Fuels' disposal site at Drigg because safety processes were considered important. Now, without apparent justification or argument, the Secretary of State for Wales has changed his mind. I should make it clear that the firm concerned is well respected and responsible and has gone out of its way to give access to information to local authorities and other interested parties. My criticism is reserved entirely for the Secretary of State for Wales, who appears to be acting irresponsibly. He is irresponsible in ignoring the views of the local authority, which deplores his decision. The authority's reservations are based not on high-flown theory but on simple practicalities and common sense. It fears that the many scavengers who gain unauthorised entry to the refuse site—including children —may be affected and that the parameters for low-level

radioactive waste disposal could be exceeded in tissue handled by children. It believes that special disposal procedures should be adopted and fears that the health risk to employees could lead to a serious situation arising if the work force refused to handle the waste. It also points out the need to provide adequate monitoring of every load arriving at the tip. Is the Welsh Office prepared to meet the cost as we expect and believe that it should?
Those are just three examples. One could also draw attention to early-day motion 271 and the information given by a former US submarine commander about discharges of radioactive coolant into British waters. Questions asked have received no proper answers and there seems to be no intention on the part of the Government to undertake proper research or to tell people the truth about these matters.
What a year we have already seen in 1989.1988 was bad enough. We saw a year of mounting concern over the international effects of a series of shocking incidents of pollution and bad waste disposal. Now in 1989 we appear to be set for an even worse picture. We are about to see an expansion of the disposal of toxic waste at ReChem in Torfaen. The plant has long caused immense local opposition, passionately voiced by my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) and other Welsh Members of Parliament. We are now in a year when the Water Bill threatens our environment, health and water supply. It is a disastrous Bill, inadequately supported either with words or resources. We are also in a year in which the carriage of radioactive material in aeroplanes has caused outrage.
Why will the Government not accept their responsibilities to ensure that environmental research is well funded, effective, well directed and acted upon? This Government are afraid of research, afraid of the facts, afraid of exposure and afraid to admit that they do not care about the environment locally, nationally or globally. They are willing to accept praise for the success of our scientists, but not willing to give them the support, encouragement and resources that they need. The Government do not care about those who work to protect our environment or, ultimately, about the interests of the British public.

Sir Ian Lloyd: The governance of great countries such as this is always and inevitably an immensely complex and difficult task. No one who has been in the House for any length of time would expect the Government to admit anything other than that at times they make errors of judgment or mistakes and that at times they do things that are not in the national interest. That is what this House is here to check and what we are about.
However, when I listen to speeches such as the one that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael)—which was interesting in its way—my reaction is that neither he nor many of his colleagues ever seems to allow that over a broad area of Government activity the Government may possibly get it right some of the time, in some places, on some issues— [Hon. Members: "And wrong."] Yes and wrong, but the general tenor of many speeches is that the Government never do anything right at any time. The House is diminished by speeches that never make any allowance for reality.
In the whole sphere of Government, if there is any one area in which it is possible to make serious, responsible and measured criticisms of Government—such criticisms go way back through successive Governments as far as science is concerned and have been made ever since I have been in the House—without antagonising Conservative Members by sweeping condemnations of everything that the Government do, it is in science. Therefore, I very much regret that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth and others who speak like him never seem to acquire the minimum degree of responsibility that would so enhance our debates and make them relevant to the profound issues that we should be addressing.
I very much agree with the views of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about Professor Sir George Porter, who is an old friend of mine. I have great respect for him as a scientist—and who would not? He is president of the Royal Society and stands on a pinnacle of science, recognised not only in this country, but throughout the world. The magnificent structure of British science upon which so much world science has been built remains profoundly and basically in pretty good shape. Of course, it can be improved and could always have more resources. However, I should be astonished if in 10, 15 or 20 years' time an hon. Member were to say that in the past two decades we have had no Nobel prizes, that there have been no new fellows of the Royal Society and that no outstanding new British science has appeared on the horizon to lift the plateau upon which so much world science is built above its present level. I do not believe that such an argument is credible. For that reason, I fully support my right hon. Friend and disagree with the analysis, even if it was conditional, of Sir George Porter.
It seems that sometimes the Opposition are more interested in the circulation of dogma than in the circulation of Carbon.
My purpose this evening is limited. I wish to consider the scope of the analysis of science policy, permitted by the expenditure White Paper—all 19 volumes of it—which I have been looking at this afternoon. I want to ask whether the analysis of science and research in that expenditure White Paper is balanced and whether we in Parliament have the necessary material to facilitate an analysis of the nation's science policy and priorities. I suggest that it is an area for improvement.
I warmly welcome the increased funding in real terms which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a few months ago and which was emphasised this evening by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. Naturally, I share the Opposition's hope that that will continue and that it will not be cut. If the success of the economy is based on science, the success of our science is, in the long run, based on the success of the economy. There is a symbiosis between the two that the House must never neglect.
The Opposition's motion seems fatally flawed by its excessive use of the ill-defined word "adequate". What is "adequate"? We talk about adequate this, adequate that and adequate the other. The late President Kennedy once summed up the argument beautifully when he said that enough is a function of what else is important. It is that consideration of priorities which neither the Opposition motion nor, in frankness and fairness, the Government amendment addresses. Both are deficient and both fail to suggest—

Mr. Straw: What we mean by "adequate" is the test that the hon. Gentleman used this time last year in a debate on British science, when he quoted the conclusions of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils, that the then expenditure plans
'"do not provide the means to move our nation's scientific capability towards the 21st century',".—[Official Report, 29 February 1988; Vol. 128, c. 740.] 
The ABRC was right then and, in my judgment, it is right now.

Sir Ian Lloyd: That may be so, but I should like to see a more precise definition of "adequate" over a much broader range of considerations. We should be able to make judgments between, for example, defence and civil research; nuclear and non-nuclear research; fundamental science and the application of science; pure chemistry and biology; fibreoptics and semi-conductors; metrology or measurement and other claims on the scientific budget; space science and terrestrial science; big astronomy and fundamental particle physics; and between agricultural DNA and human DNA. As I understand it, we cannot make such judgments now in the House of Commons.
However, can it be done? If we look at the analysis of expenditure in the latest White Paper—all 19 volumes of it —we find an interesting set of figures. Only five Departments of State are together responsible for a total of £5,178 million out of a total expenditure on research and development in the United Kingdom of £5,500 million. I repeat that five Departments are responsible for 90 per cent, of our R and D.
Let us look at how that is presented in the national expenditure analysis. The biggest is, of course, the Ministry of Defence, which spends £2,545 million. The analysis of defence expenditure in the White Paper is summarised by one line of text. There is no analysis between the R and D carried out in each of the three services which, I imagine, could have been done without disclosing secrets to the enemy, which is obviously the primary and overriding consideration in defence research. However, let us leave the question of defence because it may have special considerations.
I move now to the Department of Education and Science. It is second on the list, with a total expenditure in this area of £1,739 million. Out of the total volume, it has two pages. The Department of Trade and industry is down at £510 million. It has three pages of rather mixed analysis. I am glad to be able to say that I give the Department of Energy a clean bill of health because its £219 million on R and D enjoys a full, considered and vigorous 12-page analysis. That is an example which other Departments should be more willing to follow. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food spends £165 million, and its research and development is analysed in two paragraphs.
I put those facts before the House, because, as I said earlier, there are responsible and realistic grounds on which we can criticise the way in which we provide Parliament with information as a basis on which we can conduct these debates.
Nowhere is any attempt made to consider, describe or discuss the major departmental priorities except for energy. I believe, however, that there are a number of broader issues with which the House should deal. In a fascinating paper which was recently published in the


Economic and Social Research Council Newsletter 56 of January 1986, a Dr. Kenneth Prewitt of the Rockefeller Foundation said this about democracy and science:
The question stems from a concern that the institutions of democracy may not be robust enough to contend with the range of issues being brought to the political agenda by the rapidly accelerating development of 20th century science and technology.
He went on to say:
There is a high degree of concern, certainly in the United States"—
I believe that there is a high degree of concern here, too
"that citizens not be disenfranchised because of their scientific illiteracy in the face of a really enormously growing technical agenda".
I shall continue quoting from this paper because I believe it to be of importance and Dr. Prewitt's analysis is so outstanding. The paper said:
Science brings truth to bear on the exercise of power.… When science is doing its task, sovereignty is constrained to act within the boundaries set by demonstrable facts and probable outcomes. Science puts partial but significant restraints on the exercise of power; it constrains the arbitrary decision of either the high officials or of mass opinions; it weakens the hold of ideology on opinions by demonstrating the complexity of issues, the stubbornness of the factual constraints on their solution." 
I do not believe that I could have put that better myself.
That brings me to the statement in the White Paper on the response to the first report of the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology, published in July 1987. Mention is made in the White Paper of the welcome development of a science and techology assessment office within the Cabinet Office at No. 10. The White Paper says:
The Assessment Office will build up a picture of the relative contribution of the different R amp; D expenditures to the United Kingdom economy and will contribute advice on these matters, to the new, strengthened central structure.
Recently I put a series of questions to the Prime Minister asking what technology assessments had in fact been carried out by the new unit at No. 10· I received an answer telling me to refer to this document, because there I would see what it was all about. In fact, the unit has carried out no such assessment itself, but, apparently, has fulfilled its general responsibility of encouraging the other Departments of State to carry out such assessments.
Paragraph 12 of the White Paper reads:
The Select Committee recommend that approximately one per cent, of all Government R amp; D expenditure should be devoted to evaluation … The Assessment Office will discuss with all bodies involved in the public funding of R amp; D the need for adequate resources"—
there is that lovely word "adequate" again—
to be devoted to the various stages of the assessment process".
That raises a number of simple questions which I should like to leave with my right hon. Friend. One per cent, of the nation's research and development expenditure is 1 per cent, of £5,500 million, which gives the respectable sum of £55 million.
What are the technical assessments which have been carried out by the new unit at No. 10 as a result of the direct stimulus of other Government Departments? Has it been done and, if so, where? Secondly, how much has been spent directly as a result of this initiative and as a result of the statement made in the White Paper? Thirdly, have any results been published, especially in those areas outside defence where, as I understand the situation, there is no reason why such results should not be published? The

entire purpose of technology assessment is to enable this House and the nation to make their judgment in such an area. I suggest that at present we are almost incapable of doing that.
I have given my right hon. Friend enough questions to answer, but I ask him finally when we should expect to reach the target figure of £55 million.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I shall encourage the hon. Member for Havant (Sir Ian Lloyd) a little by first acknowledging that this year the Government have substantially increased the amount of money given to science. It would be foolish to do otherwise. Therefore, when looking at both the Labour motion and the amendment, one has to conclude that there is truth in both. The Labour motion is largely valid and points out the deficiencies in the Government's programme and position, but the Government's claims are also partly true, although I believe that the message from the House must be that they should not be complacent.
Like the hon. Member for Havant, before coming to a debate such as this, I go first to the general handbook provided in the House—the Government's Expenditure Plans. Interestingly, if one compares the breakdown given last month of the science budget expenditure in real terms, projected backwards and forwards—starting from a base point in this year's paper of 1982–83—one sees that, if one takes that as 100, the projection is that in the coming year for the first time since then there will be a substantial increase. We know that that was the import of the Chancellor's announcement in November. Indeed, it was reinforced by the detailed breakdown of figures this year and the Secretary of State's announcement this morning. However, we have seen that the pattern is consistently one that suggests that if we are not careful the increase will be what the Chancellor would call a blip rather than a fundamental change in direction.
As I put to the Secretary of State in my intervention, beyond the forthcoming financial year there is a tailing off in real terms—a decrease—of investment projected in the Government spending plan. I couple that expression of fact—on the basis of the Government's evidence—with a concern which stems from looking at the relative importance that we as a country still give to investment in science. Again, I follow the area of comment of the hon. Member for Havant. If one looks at what are now 21 volumes of the Government's Expenditure Plans, in the slim volume 12 which is the education and science volume, there are only a few paragraphs on science—paragraphs 57 to 70. That is the sum total of analyses of what is, in effect, the necessary base to sustain the whole of our country's economic, manufacturing, competitive, productive and future technological activity. The relatively little importance given to science is reflected in the way in which it is expressed, solely in the context of inputs of finance, in the presentation of the Government's economic programme.
That is not a politician's comment without justification. Until the announcement of the increase for the forthcoming year to £824 million—£94 million up on this year—that was the general tenor of the commentary by all eminent scientists in this country. We are spending far too little in the important places.
One could quote presidents of all the august and learned bodies, societies and associations. I shall quote one


who has not been mentioned so far—Sir Walter Bodmer, last year's president of the British Association. In the last paragraph of his presidential address in September last year he said:
My frustration, shared 1 believe by most scientists, is that now when science is better placed than ever before to contribute to a better future, we are having to struggle increasingly hard to prevent a damaging decline in the government support for fundamental science and to encourage industry to increase its support in scientific research and development.
Only this morning I received an invitation from Manpower 2000, a project of the southern science and technology forum at Southampton university, to speak at a conference in April which says:
It is no exaggeration to say that the resurgence of industry and the doubtful benefits to be gained from privatisation and modernisation of UK's basic services are wholly at risk because of the potential shortage of technically literate people needed to manage and operate them. This shortage will not be due so much to the Demographic Gap …as to the wholesale movement of young people away from engineering, science and maths to other less demanding disciplines.
I want briefly to refer to what seems to be the fundamental problem. I am concerned, as the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) was rightly concerned, that nearly 10 years after the Government took office there is still no strategy for science in Britain. That is an extraordinary state of affairs. Even when encouraged to produce a strategy as they were in 1987 by the Advisory Board for the Research Councils, and even having promised to do so, they still have not done so. I hope that the Minister will come clean and tell the House that the Government still do not have a strategy rather than making excuses. We should have had a strategy long ago. The Government are responsible for such matters and I hope that they will now produce a proper scientific strategy without further delay.
It is not only that promise which has been broken. I was looking through the Hansard of the other place for the day when the statement on the Health Service review was made last week. There was much criticism by peers of the fact that in that review a response was promised to the Griffiths report on community care and to the report of the Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology on priorities in medical research. I do not know whether hon. Members have yet looked at the part of the White Paper entitled "Working for Patients" which deals with that matter. There are two bland paragraphs on pages 37 and 38 on training and research. Responses were promised, but they have not been delivered. In spite of much encouragement from hon. Members and with the best expert evidence on all specific areas of science and research, we have still had an inadequate response. The Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology produced its third report of the parliamentary Session 1987–88 on priorities in medical research, making several recommendations, but that report has not yet been responded to or adequately implemented.
The same Select Committee in its first report in this parliamentary Session, 1988–89, on agricultural and food research said:
the need for a firm commitment to agricultural and food research cannot be too strongly emphasised.
On basic research the report said:
Scientific advances will depend on basic studies—in agriculture and food it will be essential to improve understanding of the basic biological processes underlying production…Basic research is a scientific investment and such an asset should be protected and used productively.

On levels of funding the Committee concluded:
The Committee share the concern of witnesses at the effects in Government funding for agricultural research in recent years.
Later, and typically, the report says:
Another, particularly topical, example of 'public good' research which Government must fund is that on salmonella.
If anything is now likely to receive funding, I suppose that that is. The report then says:
The Committee do not share the Government's belief that research, once discontinued, can be easily re-started.
There have been many encouragements for the Government to act, but in reality their performance has been poor.
I shall not go at length into global environmental matters, although that is one of my interests, as the House knows, but it is sad to record that when I asked a parliamentary question in the summer about the amount of money spent on environmental protection research across the sectors the answer showed that there had been a decrease from £22·4 million at 1987–88 prices in 1985–86 to £21·3 million at the same prices in 1987–88. If we are to be taken seriously in caring for the global environment, we must demonstrate our commitment.
The substantive point about where research investment should be placed has been made. It has to be in basic research because that is the fount of all scientific progress. At the moment we are in a state of profound national scientific crisis. There is insufficient money for basic research. Nor are sufficient people being brought into science at school or university as students or teachers. Moreover, education is continually losing scientists to the private sector, whether at home or abroad. Some go abroad and some do not.
University salaries are now down to three quarters of what they were 10 years ago in real terms and we shall lose good people from our universities. Chairs are unfilled. They are being filled not by professors but by lecturers acting up in subjects that are not their speciality. There are not enough lecturers because there are not enough postgraduate students. There are not enough postgraduate students because there is more money to be gained from training in industry than From postgraduate work at university. We do not keep overseas students because they go back to their own countries with their knowledge. Britain has done less basic research for the past 10 years than ever before.
All the time the Science and Engineering Research Council directorate, for example, will not accept projects without industrial backing. But industry is not interested in results 10 years hence. Industry wants what is of interest to it in the short term. We pay for industrial development in universities which should be done by industry when we should be paying for research. What is now done may be "near market place" research—I think that that is the phrase—and it may be more strategic, but it is at the expense of basic research. The trend is clear. The figures show that in 1978–79 the division between strategic and basic research was 42 per cent. to 56 per cent. That position has now reversed and the figures are 55 per cent. to 46 per cent. That is a worrying trend which should be reversed.
Other countries do not fall into that trap. For example, Japan has a pre-competitive research element in its universities. When the ideas are far enough developed, the Government back out and industry takes over along with the competitive market. We also apply performance


indicators that are invalid. For example, the number of papers that a department produces, including the number of pages in a paper, is not necessarily a measure of a meritorious project. The number of chapters in a book or the number of lectures given are no evidence of the best form of research.
We also fail to fund our national research if we think money is available from the EEC. The trouble is that that is often not forthcoming and, if it is, it takes a long time to work through the bureaucracy. I say that as a pro-European, not as a critic in general terms of the Community. Therefore, the money is not forthcoming from either source.
The Government should respond with increasing urgency to the lack of funding for basic resources in universities. Industry is becoming increasingly fed up with being asked for cash, and the neglect of basic research means that only those areas in which industry is most interested are funded.
I shall give three examples before concluding. We have pretended in the past that we could do well by funding basic research sufficiently to the stage where industry could take it up. Yet the head of the Ariane space programme research group resigned after two or three years because the Government would not put in money to complete the programme. The airbus is another example of the Government blowing hot and cold so that we have lost credibility with our partners.
Perhaps the best example is the APT—the advanced passenger train, which the House will remember as the tilting train. It would increase speeds in the north and was expected to increase revenue by drawing people away from motorways, and even from airlines. Indeed, in France the equivalent train has done just that. British Rail was pushed by the Government far too hard and too quickly to produce results. The train broke down during a very premature test drive with Ministers and public relations officials on board and the Government then pulled out, although British Rail said that only another £10 million was required to finish the project as the problem was only superficial. Now one of the trains has gone to the train museum in Crewe and the rest have been scrapped.
What has happened since? Our suppliers from Sweden, ASEA, are building the trains in Sweden and the first one will be ready for delivery in the autumn. They are expected to sell well. We are likely to buy our own idea from the Swedes because we never got far enough to sell, patent or use it ourselves. Far too often we judge what we should do by what is necessary to please the City and accountants rather than going to the fundamentals of what science and research need.
I welcome the increase announced by the Government although it is worrying that there will not be the same commitment in the second and third years. But, first, science and research needs planning, and planning needs a continuity of funding. The increase needs to be sustained rather than being made available for only this year.
Secondly it is no good just funding research councils when we do not also fund our universities to the same extent.
Thirdly, and most important of all, the Government still do not appreciate, and certainly do not show that they

appreciate, the skills gap, which is the most unappreciated economic crisis of all, and the lack of scientists, engineers and technologists for the future.
We know about the demography of the future, but because of underpayment of university lecturers and insufficient funding of staff in schools, and the Government's compromise that only 12 per cent. rather than 20 per cent. of the national curriculum can relate to science, these people are not likely to be available. If we do not invest in the people, we shall not have the science or research. The Government must not be complacent. They have begun to put some money into science, but very much more is needed.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: In supporting the amendment, I want to concentrate on science in schools. Before I do that, I shall refer to an article in The Times Educational Supplement which quoted Sir Herman Bondi reminding the writer that the rise of the German dye industry to world prominence and the great strides subsequently made in organic chemistry occurred when there was no chemistry teaching in German schools and very little in German universities. That extreme example shows that much of the most valuable research is through application in industry meeting the demands of the market, driven by the demands of those who need to put it to work commercially in the private sector.
The Japanese electronics industry, the German petrochemical industry and the United States aerospace industry are good examples of that principle. That is why the Government are correct to increase the science research budget by 15 per cent. since 1979, and again today, and to increase total science spending by 11 per cent. since 1979 to £1·4 billion this year, yet encourage rationalisation of scientific departments in universities, to ensure that research is better targeted and to concentrate resources more effectively. It also encourages collaborative research through, for instance, the Link initiative. I understand that the Government are spending £210 million on that initiative over five years, and it should elicit from industry a pound-for-pound response of another £210 million. The project has enabled some universities to rely for as much as 30 to 40 per cent. of their income on the funds they gain from collaborative projects with industry.
It is absolutely right for the Government to say that when profit levels show a 7 to 11 per cent. return on capital for industry, and investment is up 16 per cent. as it was last year, and profitability levels are the best for 20 years, it is correct for United Kingdom private industry to fund more of its own basic research. At present, as a proportion of GNP, United Kingdom private research is only 1 per cent., or 60 per cent. less than in Germany, and a third less than in the United States and 80 per cent. less than in Japan. Incidentally, the Japanese Government's civil research and development funding is lower as a proportion of GNP than it is in the United Kingdom. That gives an indication of the strides needed from an increasingly profitable private sector in this country to improve its basic research spending.
I want to concentrate now on science in schools. Although there have been significant improvements recently in the standards achieved in science by schoolchildren, nevertheless over the long term there is a


problem which is deep-seated and even cultural. That was highlighted in a recent survey carried out by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. The study shows that Britain's children at age 10 came 12th out of 15 countries in their scientific knowledge. In other words, at the age of 10, only a ninth of British children know what makes the moon shine—that light is reflected off the sun.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: The hon. Gentleman can have two brownie points for that.

Mr. Coombs: I am sorry, it is the other way round; the sun's light is reflected off the moon. That shows the extent of my scientific knowledge.
The survey shows that 70 per cent. of Swedish children knew that fact at age 10. At the age of 14, the British children surveyed came 11th out of 17 countries, yet by the age of 17 British children were second out of 30 countries.
The survey shows that our sixth formers are as good as those anywhere. The major problem is that only 20 per cent. of our young people go through to sixth forms, while the proportion doing so in Japan is 63 per cent. and it is 90 per cent in the United States. That is why the Government are absolutely right to concentrate their attention in framing the national curriculum on increasing the participation of children in science to the age of 16, so that they will continue with it until the age of 18,—albeit that at present about 300,000 children annually take biology GCSE, 210,000 take chemistry, and 244,000 take physics. Grades are criterion rather than norm-referenced, and the numbers of those notified as achieving A, B and C in those subjects are as high as for others. It is vital that we ensure that 100 per cent. of children up to age 16 continue with science.
It is also right of the Government to insist that balanced science forms an important part of the scientific curriculum. I am happy that, although 20 per cent. of the curriculum is allocated to children wishing to take two subjects, 12·5 per cent. of it will be accounted for by less able children following an integrated science curriculum. That type of course is more likely to be attractive and relevant to pupils of lower attainment, whom we need to attract to maintain their scientific education. Also, an integrated curriculum is, in educational terms, more rigorous. As evidence of that, I quote Professor Paul Black, chairman of the Government's assessment group, who was educational consultant to the Nuffield Chelsea Curriculum Trust:
One of the deficiencies of the separate sciences was that pupils learned one concept of energy in physics and another in biology, and a different language again in technology. Teachers did not get their act together and left the pupils to sort it out.
That is professional criticism of the separate, three-subject science curriculum, and it is why the Nuffield co-ordinated scheme offers one of the leading integrated science curricula, trying to persuade more people to maintain their scientific education—at least to GCSE O level and, it is to be hoped, to A level. If more of them can achieve A levels, there will be a larger field of potential science teachers for the future.
The Government are right to ensure that more is done in respect of primary science. I am pleased that, over the next three years, the Government will spend £25 million extra on extra advisory teachers for primary education. It is equally vital to improve schools' industry links. One of

the problems in encouraging people to take an interest in science, and to go on to engineering, is the culture gap between schools and industry. Schemes such as UVI, Trident, SATRO, and enterprise projects, all of which have been pioneered by the Government, can improve relationships between schools and industry, and thereby enhance the climate in which business and science is taught in schools, and improve their popularity.
It will be difficult to improve science standards in schools unless the problem of teacher shortages is addressed. At present, there is a shortage of 2,000 physics teachers, and about 70 per cent. of local education authorities recently notified shortages of mathematics teachers. It is not a problem that is experienced only in the United Kingdom, and it did not happen overnight. It is the result of policies stretching over the last 20 or 30 years, including the anti-industry, anti-science culture I mentioned. The Government are right to attack it with initiatives such as the teachers' career unit, which visits universities encouraging people to take up science teaching, the £1,300 per annum tax-free bursaries given to probationary science teachers, and by encouraging girls to enter science. At present, only 16 per cent. of physics graduates are women. There is encouragement also for an increase in the number of licensed teachers, which ought to attract more older scientists—who may feel that their industrial careers are at an end, but whose expertise can be applied to teaching science in schools.
The problem will not be tackled at a fundamental level, and the situation in which 34 per cent. of physics teachers who have a teaching qualification decline to enter the teaching profession will not be resolved unless we improve the archaic method of paying our teachers that this country has historically enforced. It takes the form of an insistence that teachers on the same grade should all be paid the same, wherever they may work in the country—outside London, whatever may be the shortage of their skills, whatever subject they happen to teach, and irrespective of how many unskilled people teach subjects in which they are not qualified, and of how much staff turnover there is in particular subjects. We notice, for instance, that there is a 50 per cent. staff turnover in London among computer teachers. Irrespective of all those labour market factors, teachers are paid the same in each grade, wherever they are and whatever their skill.
The 1988 legislation dealing with teachers' pay and conditions introduced a wider scale of five merit points to reward good teachers and teachers with skills in short supply. Local financial management will give schools more flexibility with which to operate that. Nevertheless, they will still be weighed down by the archaic dead weight of the incremental system, which means that even in the first year fully 70 per cent. of the money going to incentive posts must be based on the old incremental system. Only £257 million of the £7 billion annual teachers' bill can be spent on incentives which could go towards attracting people with skills in short supply, while £2,000 million goes to rewarding mere longevity, more length of service, irrespective of grade, skill or ability.
If, either from schools or centrally, we can get even a part of that incremental bill, that £2 billion a year, pushed through into incentive payments to those who have skills of which there is a shortage, who are high-fliers, who a re particularly talented, we shall be going some way towards being able to pay the increased salaries in respect of the local labour markets for those science subject shortages


that we see today. If we do that, we ought to be able to go some way towards increasing the number of science teachers in schools without increasing unduly the burden on ratepayers and taxpayers of the teachers' pay bill. That step alone would do more than any other to improve standards of scientific education in this country.

Mr. Jim Cousins: I hope that the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) will, after the speech he has just made, proceed instantly to his nearest university and deliver his homily on the importance of monetary rewards in stimulating effort. I hope that he will particularly seek out scientists working on short-term contracts and deliver to them his thoughts on the labour market structure and monetary rewards in encouraging endeavour.
The Secretary of State came into this debate tonight woofing like an old, wet dog off the lead, excited by the money he had to put in front of us, but his case has been entirely shot down by his hon. Friends. The hon. Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd) very rightly pointed out that, lost in the public expenditure White Paper, in other chapters than the chapter to which the Secretary of State drew our attention, is the fact that there are cuts in research expenditure. He drew to our attention in particular the significance of the withdrawal of the Government from so-called near market research expenditure, which, of course, has financed the apparent gains that the Secretary of State had to offer tonight.
The hon. Member for Wyre Forest gave the game away even more comprehensively when he drew to our attention the very low level of research expenditure in this country when it is not associated with defence and with Government spending. He very rightly pointed out, and I hope what he had to say was taken to heart by those on the Government Front Bench, that industry fails to support science in this country through its own expenditure. There are one or two industries—the pharmaceutical industry stands out—which make an honourable effort in that respect. The others do not. We live in a scientific disaster world for British science.
Again, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest pointed out the failure of science in our schools, the declining numbers of people who are even applying to do A-level physics and chemistry, and the linkage between that and the labour market because of the world outside the school that children can perceive.
The Secretary of State paints a picture, honest and genuine enough in its own way, of a handful of world-class research teams still based in Britain. But the base on which those teams stand is crumbling. The Secretary of State only emphasises what has been true in Britain for many years and unfortunately is still true: that while we may be successful at invention, we are poor at innovation and disastrous at spreading that innovation through our industries.
The fact is that top management in British industry is the least well-educated, the least well-trained and the least scientifically sophisticated in the world. The problem in British science is the lack of connection between the world-class research teams and what really happens to the future of our industries.

It is significant that, apart from the brief appearance of another Minister, the work of tonight's debate has been left to the education team. As we all know, science is a jumble of responsibilities throughout Government. But the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has been pondering whether he can bring himself to require companies to certify the level of research and development spending in their accounts, perhaps as a way of stimulating greater interest in the science base on the part of industry.
In the debates on the Companies Bill in the other place the noble Lord has been promising to consider that, but we are still waiting. How happy we would be tonight if a Minister could tell us, "Yes, the Government will require companies to declare their research and development spending in their accounts." Then we would be sure of a science-based commitment that was not merely based on a handful of research teams, but would be a product of industry as a whole.
How nice it would be if the Secretary of State for the Environment—given all the expenditure for which he is responsible—would come and talk to us occasionally about his commitments to research, in the subjects that have been mentioned and in others. He could make an enormous contribution to turning such cities as mine—the city of Newcastle—into science cities by binding together urban development corporations, bringing in higher education institutions and linking hospitals to the process. He is in a position to take such initiatives, but we hear nothing of them: we simply hear from the Secretary of State the story that he is protecting, on their reservations, that handful of at-risk animals, top-level British scientists.
All that that tells us is that the Government have stopped asking the wrong questions. They have still to tell us that they have found the right answers.

Mr. Tim Boswell: I always enjoy following the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins), because at one stage we found ourselves at college together. I have to say, however, that I disagree with many of his conclusions—and with the somewhat doom-laden atmosphere that his speech produced.
It seems to me, both from what the hon. Gentleman said and from the Opposition motion, that the Opposition barometer is stuck permanently at "stormy". The motion contains a number of important misconceptions which I should like to clear up at the outset. The first, essential misconception is that the process of Government spending on any particular item is in some way divorced from the general course and strength of the economy. It would be the easiest thing in the world to bump up the proportion of gross national product spent on science, overseas aid or anything else by the simple device of ensuring that the growth of the rest of GNP was zero.
The second, related misconception is to divorce spending in the public sector from what is available and will come forward from the private sector. Here I perhaps agreed with the hon. Gentleman: I too would like to see a surge forward in private sector expenditure. A long period of low profits is now changing into a period of rather higher profits, and I hope that that will be accomplished, not necessarily through compulsion, but through a readiness on the part of private firms to declare their research and development spending. There is in this


country a prevailing sin by which we measure the quality of output as a function of the state-financed input into any activity.
I feel that I must, though it is unusual to do so, refer to my curriculum vitae. I admit frankly that I have no science O-level. That is a function of the past and it would be less likely to happen now. I have been attempting to claw my position back from that state of affairs for a number of years, in practical application as a farmer; by participating as a council member in a private sector agricultural research trust for over 20 years and as its chairman for five years; and recently, and with diffidence in view of my past record, as a newly nominated member of the Agricultural and Food Research Council.
That story of myself developed strongly my support for the national curriculum requirement that everyone shall study science until school leaving age. That will create the broad base of scientific interest and, I hope, sympathy on which the higher points of the pyramid may rest.
As for Higginson and A-levels, there will have to be changes in this area. Not enough is made of the practical problems involved in changing timetables to accommodate a variety of subjects. I am equally conscious of the importance of some academic rigour and depth, and 1 would favour the retention of one or two traditional A-levels, with subjects being gone into in detail. But there must be some generality and a broader spread than the sort of education that many of us may have enjoyed in the past.
I shall now concentrate my remarks on science as such, with particular reference to the Agricultural and Food Research Council and what I have seen of that. Several hon. Members have referred to the need to improve the information and decision-making structure. It is, for example, difficult to say what the AFRC is spending, from where it is getting its money and the areas to which it is going. We are aware that it has DES and MAFF money and that it is in receipt of outside funds, but when Scotland is added along with other bits and pieces and adjustments are made for various financial years, it is difficult to come up with a single figure. We need a matrix—where from and where going to—to improve the quality of decision-making.
I am not ashamed of drawing an analogy with the National Health Service. We can proclaim that we have higher real spending on the science budget. We must, equally, face infinite demand; one cannot have too much science. We also have all the strains and stresses of the necessary management inputs, with the reorganisation and rationalisation of the vehicles for delivering that science which are now taking place.
That is happening nowhere more clearly than in agriculture, where the historic legacy has been over 25 establishments within the remit of the AFRC, now rationalised down to eight main institutes with two or three centres. This has meant a reduction in staff of 25 per cent. since 1983, a third of those by compulsory redundancy. There has also been—I would defend this—some shift towards activity within the university sector rather than within state institutes.
All this has meant many changes and much apprehension and concern among personnel. We need to complete this process as soon as we decently can. There is, and must be, scope for a number of centres of world excellence within the AFRC, although there is not scope for one in every one of its sites. Let us continue the process

and also remember, as the debate has shown, the obligation of Government to ensure that there are adequate salaries and pay structures to safeguard the personnel who work for us on the sites.
It is difficult to divide up the spectrum—from blue-skies research, through innovation and invention, to research and development. The second order but equally important world of supportive science must in future be collaborative.
My attitude towards the Health Service would be that, provided we did not prejudice ethical standards and maintained the central core of funding, the more outside funding we could add, the better. I have the same attitude to science. That was the context in which the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food carried out its celebrated, if not notorious, Barnes review and the promotion of near market funding. I am sure that the concept of the review is excellent. However, I have some concern about the speed with which it has been carried out because it has meant a rapid phasing—which is different from the central science point that I was making earlier. I am also concerned about the large cuts in funding, although I appreciate that they are not within the direct purview of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
I am sure that there are already encouraging signs that the industry will pick itself up and come to terms with the final conclusions of the review but I must emphasise the importance of collaborative activities. I have some indirect experience of the funding of the university of Essex. which enjoys a high level of self-financing.
Through my work in the trust that I mentioned, I also have some direct experience of the work of Sheffield university's commercial and industrial development bureau, which has worked tremendously hard to draw in the benefits of intellectual property. For example, it has introduced my foundation to the prescription for a commercial confidentiality agreement.
The commercial sector makes a major contribution. Agricultural food companies are already putting in about £100 million a year—and that should be more. There is more scope for outside trust funding, to which I have referred, and for collaboration with Europe. I welcome what AFRC is doing about that. Management savings can also be made from, for example, the co-location of institutes at Swindon. It is clearly useful if managements can work together, particularly in biological sciences.
The Government must keep faith by maintaining the tax-funded core of the science budget and an adequate level of remuneration for workers. Equally, the science sector and the research councils have an obligation to obtain the best possible results from their budgets and to explore all sensible increases in outside funding. The Government have set forward a basis for a balanced contract for operating effectively in the science sector. I shall support the Government amendment.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: In the few minutes remaining, I shall tell the House about the strong objections felt in south Wales about paragraph 20 of the report of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils, which has been accepted by the Secretary of State and which refers to this morning's announcement of the


closure of the Research Vessel Services base at Barry and its removal to Southampton. That totally contradicts paragraph 34 of the report.
Paragraph 20 refers to the Natural Environment Research Council placing a high priority on its plans to relocate the Institute of Oceanographic Sciences from Wormley in Surrey and its Research Vessel Services base from Barry to a single site co-located with the oceanography department of Southampton university. That will cost £17·2 million over three years, though I understand that the full figure for the commitment is twice that—some £35 million over five years—when the costs of relocating the civil servants involved are thrown in with the capital costs. So this is a £35 million, five-year commitment that the Secretary of State has entered into today.
If we turn to paragraph 34 we see a reference to the NERC's proposals for additional funds to support the biogeochemical ocean flux study. That caused the Secretary of State some verbal difficulty earlier tonight, though I am sure that all he was trying to do was indicate to everybody that 50 per cent. is the pass mark in the national curriculum from here on in. Paragraph 34 says:
NERC's proposals for additional funds for the biogeochemical ocean flux study and its North sea programme are warmly endorsed by the board on scientific grounds. Their importance has been highlighted by recent Government concern about the greenhouse effect and marine pollution.
Therefore, what I am making tonight is not a constituency point. This institution is, in fact, just outside my constituency, though many of my constituents work at RVS Barry, and they are quite apoplectic with rage today about the nature of the decision that has been imposed on them. It is not a constituency point, and it is not particularly a Welsh point; it is a British point, a point about the whole structure of this document. Is this document putting raw science first, or is it putting bricks and mortar first?
In this decision, whatever the Secretary of State may have said about wanting to put more money into the scientists doing the science, what he has actually done is to commit himself to a colossal programme of capital expenditure which will give him bricks and mortar but will starve the raw science half of the oceanography effort and will not enable Britain to play its full part in research into the greenhouse effect and the ozone layer, in which the Prime Minister has invested a great deal of her prestige, and the Secretary of State a great deal of his. He is spending £35 million. That is very generous, but the money is being spent on the wrong things.
If the Secretary of State had listened to the scientists who work in the field and not merely to the wheelers and dealers on the ABRC, who have gone past the live science field and are into negotiations in the corridors of power, he would have been told that the important thing is to refit HMS Discovery. That would cost some £10 million. That should have been the priority because the condition of HMS Discovery is dreadful. It is the flagship, the mainstay, of British oceanographic research, yet in the national newspapers, before a gag was put on them during the past month leading up to the announcement today, its superstructure was described as "rotting", and its

hydraulics as hopelessly out of date. If the hydraulics of a deep-sea oceanography vessel are out of date, it cannot use its winches properly to do deep water sampling.
Being British scientists, they will muddle through. We have this "sealing wax and string" tradition. They will make an effort to hold their heads high when they are working on these new and wonderful collaborative ventures, about which the Secretary of State has talked tonight. They will hold Britain's head high as best they can, but the Secretary of State is not giving them the tools to do the job.
The boat is the important thing. If he were to spend £10 million on the boat and halved the money he is allocating to new laboratories and the relocation of civil servants who do not want to be relocated, for supposed benefits of co-location with a university department of oceanography—a very shadowy concept of more efficient management of science—he would be spending the nation's money in a far more practical way, a way he probably approves of himself except that he has had the wool pulled over his eyes by the operators in the ABRC and the NERC.
There is the question of exactly what the Secretary of State's own powers of interaction are. What kind of Secretary of State do we want to manage our science? Do we want a hands-on Secretary of State who will look at the decisions that are proposed to him by the advisory boards and say, "Is there something wrong with this? Why are we spending money on a new laboratory? Are we sure we have got the priorities right?" Can he really defend his hands-off attitude, saying, "Oh, well, it looks all right. There will be some nice new laboratories to open in a couple of years. I can still say we are taking part, and wrap the question of the greenhouse effect and the ozone layer in a nice red, white and blue ribbon and say that Britain is in the lead, that it discovered the ozone layer, and that we are spending money in the Antarctic as well"?
When it comes to the choice of priorities, the right hon. Gentleman has failed to exercise his decision-making power and to make the judgment of priorities which is the job of the Secretary of State. He is paid by the taxpayers to decide what we should spend money on. There is a reasonable increase in his budget, but he has failed to examine that budget to see whether the right expenditure is being made on raw science rather than on bricks and mortar. By his failure he has shown a dereliction of duty and that he is not fit to run the scientific budget.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: My hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) and for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) have brought out specifically some of the fundamental errors of Britain's science and industrial policy. The combination of research facilities, universities and industrial applications will provide the new jobs for the future and create economic growth, but those facilities are being drained from Wales, from the north and from Scotland by moves such as that of the Research Vessel Services base from Barry which has been announced today. The advisory committees on which the Secretary of State relies take the academically easy course by concentrating the services at Southampton, but that is not the total picture that the Government should consider.
The hon. Members for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) and for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) made the important point


about science in schools which justified this as a necessary debate. It has been a useful debate. If the Government are so confident about their science policy, I hope that in future they will find time for a debate on it.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) stressed the necessity for university science and of producing the scientists in the first place. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) dispelled the complacency that the Secretary of State brought into the debate and took out to dinner with him in the middle, as indeed he took out most of the Government Back Benchers who rallied to hear his speech but were unable to stay the course through dinner, leaving my hon. Friends in a majority for most of the debate.
To please the Secretary of State, I shall try to deal mainly with the important issues of outputs rather than inputs, and with organisation and management rather than just expenditure. To please the hon. Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd) I shall acknowledge a real achievement by the Government. First, however, I ask the Secretary of State to ensure that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State elaborates on the point that he made about the reorganisation of the research councils and the unfinished business in a science policy statement. These are important issues and we should know more about the state of play on them.
The Government, and the Prime Minister in particular in her Royal Society speech, have acknowledged that we face a potentially serious problem in global warming and the greenhouse effect. But the problem has caught them on the wrong foot and they do not seem to know how to tackle it. The additional costs of the research are not great. Indeed, they are tiny by comparison with the cost of what would otherwise be ill-informed policies. Ministers have reduced the scientific establishment to a state in which it needs the courage of an Oliver Twist to ask for more, and with the same fear of the consequences if it does. Through ignorance and prejudice, the Government are in danger of creating problems in the environment as big as those they seek to remedy.
The greenhouse effect is a new kind of scientific problem. Weather forecasters are used to having a check on their forecasts within a day, a week or a month. Astronomers and particle physicists who cannot experiment on the universe can make predictions which can be checked by further observations and experiments. Doctors' patients either recover or they do not. Engineers design structures which either stand up or fall down. In every case there is a feedback which checks the theories and designs of the scientists. But with the global environment the feedback may come too late, in 50 or 100 years' time, long after irreparable damage may have been done. We may only get one chance to get the answers sufficiently right.
At the same time as science faces these problems, scientific research and analysis has been organised to tackle systems of unprecedented complexity. These methods are those which have been used to identify the problem of global warming and will need to be developed to still higher orders of complexity to solve them. The carbon cycle in the oceans and atmosphere controls the greenhouse effect and keeps temperatures on earth tolerable to life in all its forms. Research into just the physical aspects of the carbon cycle requires new combinations of chemistry, atmospheric physics, fluid

dynamics, solar physics, marine biology, ecology, agricultural sciences, remote satellite and direct observation, ocean survey and computer science, which all have to be brought together.
To assess their interaction, all these effects have to be brought together in computer models of the general circulation in the atmosphere and oceans. There are at present five such general circulation models in the world—four in the United States, in three different, fiercely competing federal agencies, and a university, and one in our own Met Office, which is of course under the Ministry of Defence. While the modellers meet, compare notes and agree comparative exercises, the models are each run by the handful of scientists in the teams which construct them. The smallest team is in the British Met Office—one and a half men are running our only model of the global environment, there is no exchange of models, no independent testing or comparison, no access by outside researchers and no work on new computer developments such as massively parallel computers, which will transform the approach that can be taken.
It is outrageous, but that is the research on which the future of the globe depends. It is managed by a number of researchers who would fit into a small interview room in the House of Commons. Their latest estimates of the effects of doubling carbon dioxide on global mean surface air temperature vary from 5.·2° C by the Met Office to 2·8° C by Schlesinger in the university of Oregon, but the estimates change dramatically as new factors, such as cloud cover at different altitudes, are brought into the equations. The effects forecast in particular regions are, of course, still more variable, with at present differences of forecasts between the models of 4° in summer and 10° in winter, as they forecast prospects in parts of Siberia and China. As yet, none of the models is treating land use or agricultural yields, let alone economic and industrial activity generally.
Weather forecasters are used to attaching error margins to their forecasts; they are not used to calculating the policy adjustments needed to modify rather uncertain weather and climate changes. particularly as those policy adjustments must work with long and uncertain lags through economic, social arid political behaviour. If it comes to seeking effective international agreements to limit such sensitive questions as fossil fuel burn by conservation and to deal with such difficult issues as nuclear power, many countries will not even be able to tell the direction in which their interests lie. It may be difficult to persuade the Soviet Union and China to undertake policies which will save Leningrad, Shanghai, London, Calcutta, and the estuaries of Bangladesh and China from being flooded by melted ice from the polar caps if they felt that the new climate quite transformed the possibilities of growing wheat in the more northern latitudes of Siberia and Mongolia.
Earlier precedents in the politics of modelling global problems—the Club of Rome's "Limits to Growth" study and the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis study, "Energy in a Finite World"—are not encouraging. Very serious criticisms were made by the scientific community and were fully justified, using precisely the methods of technology assessment that the hon. Member for Havant emphasised. It is essential to make the scientific basis—the theoretical, empirical, and statistical basis—of the work on global modelling and global research generally as sound, open, transparent and


accessible as possible to different interests, sciences and methodologies. They should be open to independent as well as competitive checking.
Our scientists, including Joe Forman of the British Antarctic Survey, Richard Wayne on the photochemistry of ozone and John Mitchell in the Meteorological Office, have done an outstanding job, but the organisation and resources available are inadequate. The work has no coherence. It is divided between different Departments and there is no follow through to policy. With the leadership that our working scientists have given us, a centre should be set up to test, compare and make generally available the key global general circulation models and their extensions to cover other aspects of the global environment such as land use, agricultural, economic and industrial activity which will now proliferate. The United Nations environmental programme might well be the appropriate body to invite competitive proposals which should be judged by the highest peer group standards relevant to undertaking such vital work.
Within the United Kingdom, the Natural Environment Research Council covers the Arctic, the Antarctic and the oceans. The Science and Engineering Research Council covers most of the atmosphere and satellites and the Ministry of Defence looks after the Met Office while in the Departments responsible for action and research the Department of the Environment looks over its spectacles at all this puzzling scientific stuff and the Department of Education and Science cannot even teach children science in schools. To put together and manage a coherent research programme in the United Kingdom, and United Kingdom participation in essential international programmes, a joint research council directorate should be set up on the global environment, with control of the substantial funds needed for urgent, sustained, well-integrated applied strategic research.
The additional costs of the research are tiny by comparison with the avoidable costs of errors in what otherwise would be necessarily ill-informed policies. The Science and Engineering, Natural Environment, Agricultural and Food and Economic and Social Research Councils should all be involved. The present organisation of research into the global environment, with individual scientists and teams, who have done invaluable work in identifying the problem, and who have sensible plans for continuing it in the manner appropriate to background research, is a quite inappropriate organisation for the goal-directed research of global importance which is now needed.
The nature of the problem and the research required is such that the research must be managed at one remove from Government—in the research councils and not from within the Ministry of Defence, as the Met Office is managed, and not within the Department of Education and Science or the Department of the Environment. The research must be seen as objective at home and abroad. By all means let industry and the defence budget contribute, but they must not manage or direct.
At the same time, as recent experience has shown, individual research councils and the individual scientists and teams that they support must be adequately supported because from their discoveries important results may emerge in new and unexpected directions.
Many problems that will arise from climatic change are extremely relevant in the world today. Desertification, arid agriculture and the flooding of low-lying land are not just problems of the future, but problems to which the research councils are and should be addressing effort where such problems occur in the world today. We not only meet a vital current need by tackling them, but we learn invaluable lessons for the bigger problems that may arise in the future.
Unless a research programme of the highest calibre is undertaken into the global environment, there will not exist the evidence or consent on which political agreement can be reached within this country and with other countries on the major policy initiatives that may be required to pass on to our children a global environment that they can enjoy. The Government must set up a programme without delay. The inadequacy of the Government's management of research into the global environment reflects their lack of understanding and competence in science policy generally. For that reason, we urge the House to vote for our motion tonight.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson): As with our previous debate on science at this time last year, this has been an interesting and—from Conservative Members—a sober discussion that has helped to illuminate the issues. That it has done so is, alas, no tribute to the Opposition because, more than anything else, this debate has revealed the intellectual poverty of the Labour party. We are all accustomed to the airy persiflage and fourth-form humour of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw).
For all the undoubted sincerity and worthiness of the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray), I am afraid that it is clear that his thinking has, once again, failed to rise to the level of his subject. His policy for the funding of science is simply to add £100 million or so to whatever figure the Government provide and his policy for the organisation and management of the science base is simply to parrot the panaceas of the latest scientific pressure group—or pressure group among his colleagues—which catches his attention.
In reply to the hon. Member for Blackburn, may I say that it is not enough for him, yet again, to traverse the barren ground of international comparisons of Government financial inputs into science. We had that debate last year. I remind him that it was the central issue of that debate and was firmly settled in favour of the Government's modest self-assessment that, as I put it last year, "our financial inputs, as a percentage of GDP, are broadly in line with those of our competitors". The hon. Gentleman was on new ground when he talked about spending on higher education as distinct from spending on the science base. He is on even more unprofitable ground there from his point of view. The percentage of GDP spent by the Government on higher education in Britain is at the top of the European league and is second only to that of the Netherlands.
To grasp the strategy that the Government have been pursuing in science, it is necessary to recall the position from which we started in 1979. In science and technology, that position was marked by three striking features. First, British academic science was excellent and remains so, as my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd)


clearly and convincingly pointed out. With every respect to my esteemed friend Sir George Porter, the fact is that our national contribution to the world's basic science was, and remains, second only to that of the United States; and it is marked by a range of strengths in depth that is remarkable for a country of our size and economic weight.
The second feature of the science scene in 1979 was that, in acute contrast with our strength in basic science, British science-based industry, like British industry in general, was in a bad way. Profitability was the lowest in the western world arid management and work force alike were demoralised, pessimistic and intensively focused on short-term crisis management. That was the environment in which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) and as the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) pointed out, investment by British industry in research and development was steadily falling behind that of the countries with which we compete.
A third feature of the scene, and one of the key contributory causes of that weakness in British industry, was that British science was separated by an invisible wall of culture and attitudes from British industry. At the same time, within the world of British science, a similar invisible wall of culture and attitudes ran along the striking vertical divisions between the research councils and Government Departments; between the research councils, the Government and the universities; and between and within the research councils and even within the Government's own machinery for directing science policy.
The first of those features of the scene in 1979—the excellence of British basic science—was a consequence of the historical dominance of Britain's position in science, built up by generations of British scientists since the 17th century. However, the second and third features—the weakness of British industry and the institutionalised divisions between industry and science and within the scientific world—were part of the sad harvest of 30 years of Labour-dominated thinking about the role of the state and the way in which it should be organised.
The Government's strategy for science has flowed logically from our analysis of the position that confronted us at the beginning of the decade. The overwhelming aim has been to restore the profitability and confidence of British industry so that among other things it is in a position, both intellectually and financially, to expand its commitment to research and development.
A key element in that drive has been the reduction in the burden of taxation and consequently of public expenditure. Science and higher education have shared in the rigorous scrutiny of priorities and programmes which has gone on across the whole gamut of public expenditure under this Government. That rigorous scrutiny has accompanied a 26 per cent. increase in real terms in Government spending on science between 1979 and 1989, compared with the level funding under the Labour Government—supported by the Liberals—between 1975 and 1979. I assure the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) that our support for science will continue on this trend which is rather better than that achieved by the Government whom his party supported in the 1970s.
Our strategy for encouraging industry is paying off. In the course of this decade, the profitability of British industry has been restored to the point at which it ranks among the highest in the world. I must advise the hon.

Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central, who made a powerful and effective speech, that among the results of that has been a strong rise in industry's investment in its in-house research and development. The most recent figures relate to 1986 and 1987 and show that between those years industry's investment in intra-mural research and development rose by 3 per cent., while in the chemical industry, for example, research spending rose by no less than 20 per cent.
That growth is not yet fast enough or large enough, but it represents a great improvement, which the Government are determined to speed by reducing their commitment to the support of near-market research as industry's capacity to fund its own research continues to grow. At this point I should like to say how much I welcome the emphasis placed by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) on the need for industry—and especially agriculture, which he knows so well—to respond to that challenge.

Mr. Straw: If British science-based industry is doing so well, why have we swung from a £3 billion surplus on science-based trade to a £6 billion deficit? If things are so good, why are they so bad?

Mr. Jackson: There are various ways in which one could measure the effectiveness of industry. The fact is that the profits and productivity of British industry have soared. The question of the balance of payments is a different one and it involves all sorts of other considerations, for example, of oil, exchange rates, and financial flows which are quite distinct.
Rebuilding industry's commitment to research and development is the first limb of the Government's strategy for science. The second limb has been to dismantle the strong vertical divisons of culture and attitude that have marked relations between Government, industry and science, and the organisation of science itself in Britain. Here again, our strategy has been marked by an encouraging if still insufficient measure of success. On the crucial interface between industry and academic science, there has been a striking shift of attitude on both sides of the divide, which is reflected in the increased earnings by universities from research contracts with industry. They have risen from £27 million in 1982 to £78 million in 1987—a rise of 129 per cent.
At the same time, the past 10 years have seen a powerful development of the machinery for co-ordinating our national scientific effort. My hon. Friends the Members for Havant and for Daventry were right to emphasise the importance of this. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Havant that the basis of our entire approach is to strengthen the machinery for evaluation and for priority-setting in Government science policy. That is the thinking which lies behind the range of recent developments—the strengthening of the Cabinet Office in the heart of Government, with its "Annual Review of Government funded Research and Development", the creation of new machinery for collective ministerial consideration of science and technology matters, the creation of ACOST—the Advisory Committee on Science and Technology—and the strengthening of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils, the internal reorganisation and restructuring within the research council of which my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry spoke, the creation of the interdisciplinary research centres and the


growing focus on improving research management in the universities. All of those developments are helping to address some of the weaknesses in the way in which we have organised science in Britain compared with the way in which science is organised in other countries.
It is in that context that I shall briefly deal with what the hon. Member for Motherwell, South said about the co-ordination of environmental research. Research related to the environment touches many different areas of science and many different areas of practical activity affecting all the research councils and almost every Government Department. It is certainly important to keep policies and priorities in this area, as elsewhere, under constant review, because the deployment of resources simply cannot be frozen in a fixed pattern, whether financially or geographically. That, briefly, is the answer to the complaints of the hon. Members for Cardiff, South and Penarth and for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) about the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology in Bangor and the removal of Research Vessel Services from Barry.
With regard to what the hon. Member for Motherwell, South said, there is certainly a case for stronger measures of co-ordination, but at the same time there is a danger of detaching environmental research from cognate research in associated areas and detaching it from the diversified contexts in which environmental research is necessarily conducted. Those questions are being addressed by ACOST and by the ABRC and we await their advice.
Part of the common ground in this debate—and there is common ground—is that basic science is important. I think especially of the speech of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey and the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Havant. The Government recognise the fundamental importance of basic science. It is our concern that lies behind the 16 per cent. increase in science funding which the Government have just announced for this year.
Our strategy can be summed up in four brief points. We are promoting a closer relationship between academic science and industry. We are promoting the growth of industry's commitment to research and development. We are promoting a more coherent approach to the management and the purposeful direction of the science base. We are continuing and strengthening the Government support for basic science.
Those policies are part of a successful strategy for continuing excellence in British science and for the revival of British industry. All of us in this House recognise that those two matters are linked. The point has been effectively made by a number of hon. Members. It is on that basis that I commend the Government's amendment to the House.

Mr. Win Griffiths: I would like to take up a matter that was completely unanswered by the Secretary of State, which is the problem that will be created in the future because of the reduced number of scientists entering the teaching profession. The Department of Education and Science, in its submission to the Select Committee on Education, said that there would be a shortfall of 1,000 physicists by 1995. However, there has been a report, entitled "Securing our Future", sponsored by the

Headmasters' Conference, the Secondary Heads Association and the Engineering Council, which estimated that there would be a shortfall of 2,000 physicists by 1995 and an optimistic shortfall of more than 4,000 mathematicians and, using a pessimistic figure, a shortfall of more than 12,000. It is a pity that the Minister did not deal with that issue.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 212, Noes 279.

Division No. 80]
[10 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Allen, Graham
Eadie, Alexander


Alton, David
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Anderson, Donald
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Armstrong, Hilary
Fatchett, Derek


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Faulds, Andrew


Ashton, Joe
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Fisher, Mark


Barron, Kevin
Flannery, Martin


Battle, John
Flynn, Paul


Beckett, Margaret
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Beith, A. J.
Foster, Derek


Bell, Stuart
Foulkes, George


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Fraser, John


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n amp; R'dish)
Fyfe, Maria


Bermingham, Gerald
Galbraith, Sam


Blair, Tony
Galloway, George


Blunkett, David
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Boateng, Paul
George, Bruce


Boyes, Roland
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Bradley, Keith
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Golding, Mrs Llin


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Gould, Bryan


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Buchan, Norman
Grocott, Bruce


Buckley, George J.
Hardy, Peter


Caborn, Richard
Harman, Ms Harriet


Callaghan, Jim
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Haynes, Frank


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Heffer, Eric S.


Canavan, Dennis
Henderson, Doug


Cartwright, John
Hinchliffe, David


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld amp; Kilsyth)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Holland, Stuart


Clay, Bob
Home Robertson, John


Clelland, David
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Cohen, Harry
Howells, Geraint


Coleman, Donald
Hoyle, Doug


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Cousins, Jim
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cox, Tom
Illsley, Eric


Crowther, Stan
Ingram, Adam


Cryer, Bob
Janner, Greville


Cummings, John
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Cunningham, Dr John
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Darling, Alistair
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Lambie, David


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Lamond, James


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
Leadbitter, Ted


Dewar, Donald
Leighton, Ron


Dixon, Don
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Dobson, Frank
Litherland, Robert


Doran, Frank
Livsey, Richard


Douglas, Dick
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lofthouse, Geoffrey






Loyden, Eddie
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


McAllion, John
Richardson, Jo


McAvoy, Thomas
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


McCartney, Ian
Robertson, George


Macdonald, Calum A.
Robinson, Geoffrey


McFall, John
Rooker, Jeff


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Ruddock, Joan


McKelvey, William
Sedgemore, Brian


McLeish, Henry
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McNamara, Kevin
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McTaggart, Bob
Short, Clare


McWilliam, John
Skinner, Dennis


Madden, Max
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Smith, C. (Isl'ton amp; F'bury)


Marek, Dr John
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Snape, Peter


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Soley, Clive


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Spearing, Nigel


Martlew, Eric
Steel, Rt Hon David


Maxton, John
Steinberg, Gerry


Meale, Alan
Stott, Roger


Michael, Alun
Strang, Gavin


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Straw, Jack


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Morgan, Rhodri
Turner, Dennis


Morley, Elliott
Vaz, Keith


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Wall, Pat


Mullin, Chris
Wallace, James


Nellist, Dave
Walley, Joan


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


O'Brien, William
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


O'Neill, Martin
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wilson, Brian


Parry, Robert
Winnick, David


Patchett, Terry
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Pendry, Tom
Worthington, Tony


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Wray, Jimmy


Prescott, John
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Quin, Ms Joyce



Radice, Giles
Tellers for the Ayes:


Randall, Stuart
Mr. Frank Cook and


Redmond, Martin
Mr. Robert N. Wareing.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Brazier, Julian


Alexander, Richard
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Brown, Michael (Brigg amp; Cl't's)


Allason, Rupert
Browne, John (Winchester)


Amos, Alan
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Arbuthnot, James
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Buck, Sir Antony


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Budgen, Nicholas


Ashby, David
Burns, Simon


Aspinwall, Jack
Burt, Alistair


Atkins, Robert
Butcher, John


Atkinson, David
Butler, Chris


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Butterfill, John


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Baldry, Tony
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Carrington, Matthew


Batiste, Spencer
Carttiss, Michael


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Bellingham, Henry
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Bendall, Vivian
Chope, Christopher


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Churchill, Mr


Benyon, W.
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Colvin, Michael


Body, Sir Richard
Conway, Derek


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Boswell, Tim
Cope, Rt Hon John


Bottomley, Peter
Cormack, Patrick


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Couchman, James


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Cran, James


Bowis, John
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd amp; Spald'g)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Davis, David (Boothferry)





Day, Stephen
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Dorrell, Stephen
Key, Robert


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kilfedder, James


Dunn, Bob
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Durant, Tony
Knapman, Roger


Dykes, Hugh
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Eggar, Tim
Knowles, Michael


Emery, Sir Peter
Knox, David


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Lang, Ian


Evennett, David
Lawrence, Ivan


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Lee, John (Pendle)


Favell, Tony
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lightbown, David


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Fishburn, John Dudley
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Fookes, Dame Janet
McLoughlin, Patrick


Forman, Nigel
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Forth, Eric
Maude, Hon Francis


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Mills, Iain


Fox, Sir Marcus
Miscampbell, Norman


Franks, Cecil
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Freeman, Roger
Mitchell, Sir David


French, Douglas
Moate, Roger


Fry, Peter
Monro, Sir Hector


Gale, Roger
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Gardiner, George
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Gill, Christopher
Morrison, Sir Charles


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Moss, Malcolm


Glyn, Dr Alan
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Mudd, David


Goodlad, Alastair
Neale, Gerrard


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Neubert, Michael


Gow, Ian
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Norris, Steve


Gregory, Conal
Oppenheim, Phillip


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Page, Richard


Grist, Ian
Paice, James


Ground, Patrick
Patnick, Irvine


Grylls, Michael
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Pawsey, James


Hampson, Dr Keith
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hannam, John
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Powell, William (Corby)


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Price, Sir David


Harris, David
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Haselhurst, Alan
Rathbone, Tim


Hayes, Jerry
Redwood, John


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Rhodes James, Robert


Hayward, Robert
Riddick, Graham


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Heddle, John
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Hill, James
Roe, Mrs Marion


Hind, Kenneth
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Holt, Richard
Rost, Peter


Hordern, Sir Peter
Rowe, Andrew


Howard, Michael
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Howarth, G. (Cannock amp; B'wd)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Scott, Nicholas


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Shelton, Sir William (Streatham)


Hunter, Andrew



Irvine, Michael
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Jack, Michael
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Jackson, Robert
Shersby, Michael


Janman, Tim
Sims, Roger


Jessel, Toby
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)






Soames, Hon Nicholas
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Speller, Tony
Viggers, Peter


Squire, Robin
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Steen, Anthony
Waller, Gary


Stern, Michael
Ward, John


Stevens, Lewis
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Warren, Kenneth


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Watts, John


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Wells, Bowen


Sumberg, David
Wheeler, John


Summerson, Hugo
Whitney, Ray


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Widdecombe, Ann


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Wiggin, Jerry


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Wilshire, David


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Winterton, Nicholas


Thorne, Neil
Wolfson, Mark


Thornton, Malcolm
Wood, Timothy


Thurnham, Peter
Woodcock, Mike


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Yeo, Tim


Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Tracey, Richard



Tredinnick, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Trippier, David
Mr. David Maclean and


Twinn, Dr Ian
Mr. Sydney Chapman.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put
forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on
amendments):—

The House divided: Ayes 270, Noes 206.

Division No. 81]
[10.12 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Butler, Chris


Alexander, Richard
Butterfill, John


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Allason, Rupert
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Amos, Alan
Carrington, Matthew


Arbuthnot, James
Carttiss, Michael


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Arnold, Tom (HazelGrove)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Ashby, David
Chope, Christopher


Aspinwall, Jack
Churchill, Mr


Atkins, Robert
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Atkinson, David
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Colvin, Michael


Baldry, Tony
Conway, Derek


Batiste, Spencer
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Bellingham, Henry
Cope, Rt Hon John


Bendall, Vivian
Cormack, Patrick


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Couchman, James


Bevan, David Gilroy
Cran, James


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd amp; Spald'g)


Body, Sir Richard
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Day, Stephen


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Dorrell, Stephen


Boswell, Tim
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bottomley, Peter
Dunn, Bob


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Durant, Tony


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Dykes, Hugh


Bowis, John
Eggar, Tim


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Emery, Sir Peter


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Brazier, Julian
Evennett, David


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Brown, Michael (Brigg amp; Cl't's)
Favell, Tony


Browne, John (Winchester)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bruce, Ian (Dorset SouthM)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Buck, Sir Antony
Fishburn, John Dudley


Budgen, Nicholas
Fookes, Dame Janet


Burns, Simon
Forman, Nigel


Burt, Alistair
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Butcher, John
Forth, Eric





Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Mitchell, Sir David


Franks, Cecil
Moate, Roger


Freeman, Roger
Monro, Sir Hector


French, Douglas
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Fry, Peter
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Gale, Roger
Morrison, Sir Charles


Gardiner, George
Moss, Malcolm


Gill, Christopher
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Neale, Gerrard


Goodlad, Alastair
Neubert, Michael


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Gow, Ian
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Greenway, Harry (Eating N)
Norris, Steve


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Gregory, Conal
Page, Richard


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Paice, James


Grist, Ian
Patnick, Irvine


Ground, Patrick
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Grylls, Michael
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Pawsey, James


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hannam, John
Powell, William (Corby)


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Price, Sir David


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Harris, David
Rathbone, Tim


Haselhurst, Alan
Redwood, John


Hayes, Jerry
Rhodes James, Robert


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Riddick, Graham


Hayward, Robert
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Heddle, John
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Hill, James
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Hind, Kenneth
Rowe, Andrew


Holt, Richard
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Hordern, Sir Peter
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Howard, Michael
Sayeed, Jonathan


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Scott, Nicholas


Howarth, G. (Cannock amp; B'wd)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb'j)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Shelton, Sir William (Sfm)


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hunter, Andrew
Shersby, Michael


Irvine, Michael
Sims, Roger


Jack, Michael
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Jackson, Robert
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Janman, Tim
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Jessel, Toby
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Speller, Tony


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Squire, Robin


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Key, Robert
Steen, Anthony


Kilfedder, James
Stern, Michael


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Stevens, Lewis


Knapman, Roger
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Knowles, Michael
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Knox, David
Sumberg, David


Lang, Ian
Summerson, Hugo


Lawrence, Ivan
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Lightbown, David
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Thorne, Neil


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Thornton, Malcolm


McLoughlin, Patrick
Thurnham, Peter


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Maude, Hon Francis
Tracey, Richard


Mills, Iain
Tredinnick, David


Miscampbell, Norman
Trippier, David






Twinn, Dr Ian
Widdecombe, Ann


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Wiggin, Jerry


Waddington, Rt Hon David
Wilshire, David


Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Walden, George
Winterton, Nicholas


Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Wolfson, Mark


Waller, Gary
Wood, Timothy


Ward, John
Woodcock, Mike


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Yeo, Tim


Warren, Kenneth
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Watts, John



Wells, Bowen
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wheeler, John
Mr. David Maclean and


Whitney, Ray
Mr. Sydney Chapman.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)


Allen, Graham
Dewar, Donald


Anderson, Donald
Dixon, Don


Armstrong, Hilary
Dobson, Frank


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Doran, Frank


Ashton, Joe
Douglas, Dick


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Duffy, A. E. P.


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Barron, Kevin
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Battle, John
Eadie, Alexander


Beckett, Margaret
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Beith, A. J.
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Bell, Stuart
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Fatchett, Derek


Bennett, A. F. (D'nfn amp; R'dish)
Faulds, Andrew


Bermingham, Gerald
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Blair, Tony
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Blunkett, David
Fisher, Mark


Boateng, Paul
Flannery, Martin


Boyes, Roland
Flynn, Paul


Bradley, Keith
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Foster, Derek


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Foulkes, George


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Fraser, John


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Fyfe, Maria


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Galbraith, Sam


Buchan, Norman
Galloway, George


Buckley, George J.
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Caborn, Richard
George, Bruce


Callaghan, Jim
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Gould, Bryan


Canavan, Dennis
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Cartwright, John
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Grocott, Bruce


Clay, Bob
Hardy, Peter


Clelland, David
Harman, Ms Harriet


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Cohen, Harry
Haynes, Frank


Coleman, Donald
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Heffer, Eric S.


Corbett, Robin
Henderson, Doug


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hinchliffe, David


Cousins, Jim
Hogg, N. (C'nauld amp; Kilsyth)


Cox, Tom
Holland, Stuart


Crowther, Stan
Home Robertson, John


Cryer, Bob
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cummings, John
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Howells, Geraint


Cunningham, Dr John
Hoyle, Doug


Darling, Alistair
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)





Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Parry, Robert


Illsley, Eric
Patchett, Terry


Ingram, Adam
Pendry, Tom


Janner, Greville
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Prescott, John


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Radice, Giles


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Randall, Stuart


Lambie, David
Redmond, Martin


Lamond, James
Richardson, Jo


Leadbitter, Ted
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Leighton, Ron
Robertson, George


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Litherland, Robert
Rooker, Jeff


Livsey, Richard
Ruddock, Joan


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Sedgemore, Brian


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Loyden, Eddie
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McAllion, John
Short, Clare


McAvoy, Thomas
Skinner, Dennis


McCartney, Ian
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Macdonald, Calum A.
Smith, C. (Isl'ton amp; F'bury)


McFall, John
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Snape, Peter


McKelvey, William
Soley, Clive


McLeish, Henry
Spearing, Nigel


McMamara, Kevin
Steel, Rt Hon David


McTaggart, Bob
Steinberg, Gerry


McWilliam, John
Stott, Roger


Madden, Max
Strang, Gavin


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Straw, Jack


Marek, Dr John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Wall, Pat


Martlew, Eric
Wallace, James


Maxton, John
Walley, Joan


Meale, Alan
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Michael, Alun
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Wilson, Brian


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Winnick, David


Morgan, Rhodri
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Morley, Elliott
Worthington, Tony


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Wray, Jimmy


Mullin, Chris
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Nellist, Dave



Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Tellers for the Noes:


O'Brien, William
Mr. Frank Cook and


O'Neill, Martin
Mr. Robert Wareing.

Question accordingly agreed to.

MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House applauds the steps taken by the Government to sustain and improve still further the strength and quality of science in the United Kingdom, noting in particular: the inclusion of science as part of the new national curriculum, measures to improve the supply of science teachers in schools, recent evidence that eminent scientists are returning to this country, the 26 per cent. real terms increase in the science budget since 1979, and the allocation of extra funds for research to tackle problems of the global environment, to improve the quality of life and to underpin the technological competitiveness of British industry.

Social Services (Designation of Functions)

Mr. Speaker: Order. We now come to draft Local Authority Social Services (Designation of Functions) Order 1989. Mr. Freeman.

Mr. John Battle: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it possible for the instruments appearing on the Order Paper to be taken separately? The regulations applying to housing are, in my view, different and should be discussed differently from the two instruments applying to the social services.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have not heard any suggestion that they should be taken together, and I referred to only one order. It may be for the convenience of the House, however, to discuss the following two together, but that is for later on.

Mr. Ian McCartney: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would like the two instruments relating to the social services to be debated separately. Several of my hon. Friends and I feel that different matters apply to both and that they should be debated in some detail separately, especially in terms of the way in which they affect local authority resources.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I said that that would be the case, and certainly I mentioned only one order.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman): I beg to move,
That the draft Local Authority Social Services (Designation of Functions) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 19th December, be approved.
Following your ruling, Mr. Speaker, it may be for the convenience of the House if the two instruments-[HON.MEMBERS: "No."]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think it is the wish of the House that they be taken separately.

Mr. Freeman: I thought that you wished both social services matters to be taken together, Mr. Speaker, but I stand corrected.
I shall not detain the House long over the first order. The Local Authority Social Services (Designation of Functions) Order, which applies only to England and Wales, is to designate under the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 as social service functions those functions of local social services authorities under the Access to Personal Files Act 1987 and under the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986. The effect of this is that the powers and duties specified stand referred to the social services committee to which those functions may be delegated and the social services department may deal with that work. That is what has always been envisaged.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I understand that children about whom a statement has been prepared and who have been under the supervision of the education department until they have completed their schooling will then be handed over to the social services department. What is the logic behind and the justification for that? It seems unfortunate that after parents have built up a good understanding with people in the education department, which prepared the statement on the young

people in question, the children should be handed over to the social services department merely because they can no longer continue in full-time education. The new department must then establish contact with the family.

Mr. Freeman: The first order relates specifically to the functions of social services departments in local authorities. The second order deals in much greater substance with access to personal files and other matters that the hon. Gentleman may want to raise. This order merely designates the functions currently performed by social services authorities under the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970. It is a necessary procedural measure, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Tom Clarke: We shall not oppose the instruments because we believe that they tidy up some parts of the legislation and show the House the Government's thinking.
The Minister omitted to mention the Government's intention to allocate to the social services departments their responsibility for implementing the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986. I had understood that that was to be done from information made available in the Library—

Mr. Freeman: I can confirm that.

Mr. Clarke: I display no conceit when I say that we regard that as the most important part of the regulations. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), who introduced the Access to Personal Files Bill in 1987—we shall discuss it in greater detail when we come to the second instrument—has made a considerable contribution to our deliberations on these matters. We welcome the Minister's clarification that access is also recognised under the disabled persons legislation, but it is important to distinguish between the Government's intention to include access to information under that legislation and their inability so far to introduce orders on the sections with which this instrument specifically deals.
Many of us were heartened by the Minister's response to an Adjournment debate on 1 February, when he indicated great interest in one of the sections covered by the order. I refer to section 7, which deals with discharge from long-stay psychiatric hospitals. The Minister said then:
My hon. Friend will be aware of the importance of that Act in strengthening and extending legal provisions for disabled people and re-inforcing their rights in society. That, of course, includes mentally ill people. Section 7 will require health and local authorities to assess the needs of people discharged from hospital after treatment for a mental disorder of six months or more, and officials from the Department are currently involved in a series of meetings with representatives of both health and local authorities, identifying the processes, procedures and costs that will make up the requirements under this important section of the Act.
I was gladdened, as I think we all were, when the Minister added:
I am taking a personal interest in those discussions, and I can assure my hon. Friend that we treat the matter seriously."—[Official Report, 1 February 1989; Vol. 146, c. 407.]
If that is the case, I think it will be welcome, but I have to express considerable disappointment that the Government have taken so much time in getting this far. In view of the


Minister's personal interest, which we welcome, we look forward to a great deal more progress on the section than we have seen so far.
This morning, on one of the radio phone-in programmes that we hear in London from time to time, the Secretary of State was asked by a doctor a question that is relevant to our debate. The doctor asked about elderly people with disabilities being discharged into the community. He said that it sounded as though there would be faster discharges. Where were these patients going, he asked. The Secretary of State replied that we had to wait for the Griffiths report, which he said would be dealt with "shortly". "Shortly" is not a word that he has so far used in this House, and I think it is important that we should seize this opportunity in dealing with the order to ask the Minister, especially when we are concentrating on the role of local government—the role that people see for local authorities—precisely what is to happen to the Griffiths report and to its recommendation about the enhanced role of local government.
The order brings within the scope of functions to be discharged through a local authority's social services committee those functions contained in sections 1 to 5 and in sections 7 and 8 of the 1986 Act, except those appropriate to a local education authority.
I should like to refer briefly to each of those sections and to ask what is the Minister's thinking in terms of these instruments. Section 1 deals with the appointment of authorised representatives of disabled people, and section 2 with the rights of authorised representatives of disabled people. I think that that Act was seen and that those who supported it recognised it as a major breakthrough in terms of advocacy and representation. It is a pity that we have to wait for the full implementation of the Act, but we see, for example, in cities like Sheffield, that good practice already exists. Advocacy is there, and representation is there; it is taking place.
It seems to me that if, rightly in the context of the access to information Act, we make more people aware precisely of that information we will in many ways be building up people's hopes. It would be a great disappointment to many people if we simply provided the information and did not do anything effective about making sure that the representation and advocacy provisions and the other sections were implemented fully.
Section 3, as the Minister will recall—it is mentioned in the instruments before the House—deals with local authorities' assessment of the needs of disabled people, and section 4 with the duty to consider the needs of disabled people. I need hardly remind the House that when my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) introduced the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Bill of 1970 it was accepted then and subsequently by every Secretary of State that assessments, once established, should be acted upon. I think the same would be true of this order. I invite the Minister's endorsement of that.
Section 5 deals with disabled people leaving special education. We know that the section was welcome, as the order will be, to organisations like Mencap and the 19-plus groups in many parts of the country, as well as to parents who have to cope with the serious problems for young people leaving special education who wonder what their future will be. It is important that not only do we have information available for parents, representatives and the

disabled persons but that the assessments are carried out according to the sections of the Act which are being implemented.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The Minister did not answer my question about section 5 when I intervened earlier. Can my hon. Friend explain the mechanism? As I understand section 5, it set out a framework for what happens when a person completes his education. I understand that the person will no longer be the responsibility of the education department but will be taken over by the social services department. If the parents of a young person have built up a good relationship with the education department, will the case have to be transferred to the social services department, or can the education department continue to carry out the necessary functions? The order refers to
Sections 1 to 5, 7 and 8 except insofar as they assign functions to a local authority".
Can my hon. Friend help me?

Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the difficulties. There is a grey area about the transfer of responsibility from the education authority to social services. This has meant that when children experiencing special education leave school at the age of 19, no plans have been made for their future. This is why there are so many 19-plus groups. Often no assessments have been made and social services departments do not accept responsibility for the future of the children. When the section is implemented, we hope that parents will be consulted about the future of their children and that the whole process will be much tidier than it is today, with tragic consequences in many cases.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Can my hon. Friend tell me whether there was proper consultation with the organisations for the disabled, such as the Derbyshire Council for the Disabled, before the order was introduced? I wonder whether groups which specialise in assisting the disabled much more than happened 10 to 15 years ago have been consulted or whether they should be consulted. These are questions which should be answered.

Mr. Clarke: It is a fundamental question. The title of the Act is the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act. So the main thrust of the Act was to involve disabled persons or their representatives in decisions affecting them which are taken by the House and by local authorities. So when my hon. Friend asks whether I agree that there has been adequate consultation, I have to reply that I do not think so. Indeed, at a later point. I wanted specifically to ask the Minister what consultation has taken place, and I think it would be helpful if we heard not only about consultation as between the various Government Departments and the local authority associations, but with the kind of organisations of and for disabled people which my hon. Friend mentioned.

Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend confirmed that the recently published Local Government and Housing Bill will include a section in relation to curtailing the rights of local authorities to co-opt on to various council committees. If it is confirmed that that is the Government's intention, many social services committees, including my own local authority's, who provide special places by co-option of disabled representatives will have to exclude them from consideration in voting in meetings of the social services committees.

Mr. Clarke: Again, I think my hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and I wonder whether, when the Minister or the Government consulted the local authority association which speaks for my hon. Friend's authority, that point was put to it. Certainly I think that we will be hearing a great deal more about it.
I was about to deal with section 7. On this point, especially when the Minister, I know, is discussing the whole issue of resources with the organisations involved, I think it is important that we should reaffirm the need, especially when informaton has been made available to people but not necessarily followed by either assessment or services, for adequate bridging funding to be made available and that that is again seen in the context of the Griffiths report, and indeed of the fairly overwhelming criticisms of discharge from hospital, not matched by either assessment or arrangements for people who are leaving hospital, criticisms which were made very strongly and profoundly by the Audit Office report and accepted unreservedly by Griffiths.
Therefore, we want to avoid the sort of issue which organisations like MIND remind us of time after time, such as the "revolving door" syndrome. We know that many people move out of hospital and then back again, perhaps into another hospital or into a local authority home, without any real assessment being made of their needs, and indeed of their place in society. So, in making the information available in the way the order would do, we want to ensure that those who wish to face the problem of proper assessments for people leaving hospital avoid the kind of problems we have seen and are properly resourced, because otherwise, as Sir Roy Griffiths has clearly indicated, the problem will continue and will be as unacceptable in the future as it has been in the past.

Mr. Bob Cryer: One of the concerns about this order is that it is not much good designating local authorities if they do not carry out the functions my hon. Friend is talking about. Would he perhaps refer to the primary legislation which gave the power to introduce this order to see whether there is a means of making local authorities carry out their duties?

Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to call for monitoring, and my view, especially when we talk about consultation, is that there are no better people to monitor precisely what is going on than disabled people, their carers and the representatives themselves.
Section 8 deals with the duty of local authorities to take into account the abilities of the carer. In many ways in our society today, we exploit the good will and commitment of millions of carers, mainly women, in many parts of the country. Were they not as committed as they are, in many cases 24 hours a day, seven days a week, it would cost the Treasury millions of pounds to fill the gap. Therefore, I think we ought to hear a great deal more from the Government about the role of the carer, because if local authorities cannot take on board the carers' needs in relation to the disabled people that they are looking after, the whole relationship can break down as between the two people and, instead of avoiding extra cost, two people—the carer and the disabled person—are hospitalised, and institutionalised, and costing more money. Also, that is, socially quite unwise and unacceptable.
The order also brings the function in section 1 of the Access to Personal Files Act 1987 into the duties to be

discharged through a local authority's social services committee. The Minister made it quite clear that that is where the responsibilities lie.
I extend a cautious welcome to the order. We shall not oppose it, but we believe that scrutiny is important. As my hon. Friends have made clear in their interventions, the role of the consumer is absolutely essential, information should be provided and there should be adequate consultation at every stage. We are dealing with the rights and needs of millions of people in Britain, and hon. Members should recognise those rights and needs and make it clear that we associate urgency with those objectives.

Mr. Ian McCartney: Prolonging tonight's debate beyond the normal procedure provides an opportunity for those of us who are involved in local authorities, social services and the voluntary sector. I am involved in the care of the mentally disabled and the mentally ill.
Although we shall not divide the House, it is clear that the Government seek to give an impression that they are extending the ability of disabled people and other client groups needing the assistance of the social services to gain access to a whole new range of resources and facilities. However, the day-to-day running of social services departments reveals that their budgets are continually under stress to provide resources for their current obligations. In many local authorities, particularly in areas of urban deprivation, the staffing of social services departments is in crisis. In many instances, people involved in social services are continually hounded when crises occur and difficulties arise because departments are unable to provide an adequate service for their disabled clients and to carers in the community.
Therefore, it is important for the Minister to recognise that it is not simply a matter of setting down in an order the duties and responsibilities of local authorities, but that resources must be provided to enable those commitments to be carried out. Unless those resources are provided there will not be one additional facility for carers, one additional place for the mentally disabled, one additional hostel for the mentally ill, or one additional aid or adaptation, training place or employment place for the mentally disabled, nor will there be any additional resources for special educational needs for disabled persons when they reach the age of 19. The order will be absolutely meaningless if it is not coupled with a commitment to provide additional resources for local authorities to carry out their obligations.
Assessing the needs of disabled people without acting on that assessment is one of the greatest disincentives to carers in the community. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House through advice centres or through local authorities encounter cases of stress in which carers can no longer meet their obligations and reach the end of their tether because of the lack of respite care or additional assistance to help them to meet what they consider to be their family obligations.
I will give some personal examples of the problems that have arisen, are arising and will continue to arise unless the Minister provides the resources to go with the order. For the mentally ill, one of the great problems, as my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke)


said, is that at the end of their treatment, whether it is 28 days of treatment or a three six months stay in a National Health Service hospital, they are immediately back in the community, sometimes with an adequate assessment and sometimes not. Often there is no assessment. They find themselves back in the stressful situation that brought about their mental collapse in the first place. They often go back to a hard-to-let local authority housing estate with no heating or cooling facilities and without resources to maintain themselves. They quickly find themselves back in a stressful position, and then back in hospital for a short or longer stay.
Care in the community for the mentally ill requires that in the assessment period of leaving the hospital and going back into the community there must be resources for hostel care and for day care. One great boon to people in my area is the local authority's commitment, along with the Grosvenor housing association, to build a number of core and cluster arrangements. Mentally ill people are thus not simply passed out of one hospital and back into the community and a stress situation. They come into the community either through the day care facilities or through the hostels, where the assessment of their needs can continue to be monitored and where assistance is given with jobs and other treatment that they require to ensure that they remain outside the hospital once their need has been assessed. They can then be brought back into the community.
It is a tragedy that many, especially those who suffer from schizophrenia, find themselves in hospital one day and the next day are given a bus pass and ticket back to the community from which they came and where there are few or no resources for the social services to cope with the problem. In many instances, the first stop is the magistrates court or Greater Manchester police, neither of which want or should be expected to cope with the problems caused by the inability of local authorities to provide for the needs of the mentally ill. On some occasions, magistrates send mentally ill people to prison for short or long periods simply because no resources are provided to treat mental illness or stress during a period of mental illness. Many people whose only crime is to suffer from mental illness are incarcerated in prisons as a result of the Government's failure to provide local authorities with the resources to care for the mentally ill.
That failure on the part of the Government is a scandal. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), the former Under-Secretary of State, met me last autumn to discuss the crisis in the north-west region in terms of facilities for the care in the community of the mentally disabled. We have two of the largest mental institutions in Europe at Brockhall and at Calderstones outside Blackburn. Over the next 10 years, there is to be a process of bringing back into the community many mentally disabled people from throughout the north-west. Local authorities such as Wigan, Manchester, Oldham, Bolton, Preston and Blackburn have produced plans and resources to bring back into the community over 10 years either individuals or groups and to allow hundreds of people who have been unnecessarily maintained for 20 or 30 years in those large institutions to leave them. Yet that programme is in a state of collapse in the north-west because of the Government's inability to fund it properly, both in terms of the criteria for funding for the young mentally disabled and the criteria for dealing with the elderly or people who have a physical and mental handicap. In Wigan, the local

authority is prepared to take about a dozen people from Brockhall and Calderstones hospitals over the next three years, but the programme has ground to a halt because of the inability to obtain assurances about the long-term funding of the programme.
What about the position of vaccine-damaged children? They are a product of society and the responsibility of all those of us who are committed to the principle of mass vaccination. In committing ourselves to that principle, we must bear in mind that even with today's improved vaccines a small proportion of children are at risk and will end up permanently brain damaged. Indeed, in most instances vaccine-damaged children are not just brain-damaged but due to the nature of the damage suffer physical as well as mental deprivation.
Many of the children who were vaccine damaged in the 1960s and 1970s are now reaching their teens and young adulthood. A young vaccine-damaged lad in my constituency is coming out of a special education establishment this week at the age of 19. Because of lack of resources and the inability and failure of the North Western regional health authority to provide additional care, the family will have to keep that lad at home seven days a week because no facilities are provided for him. The locai authority is still prepared to try to assess and to give some day-centre care, but that is totally inadequate in relation to the order. The order places a requirement on the local authority to assess disabled persons leaving special education, but having carried out that assessment and stated the requirement of that young vaccine-damaged lad to have regular five days a week day-centre care the local authority does not have the resources to provide that care, purely and simply because of the Government's lack of commitment to providing the necessary resources for local authorities.
The order also places on local authorities an obligation to assess the needs of disabled persons. In radical authorities which deal with social services departments, much of that assessment will relate to training and employment opportunities. Thank God the days when people with mental and physical handicaps were shunned and pushed aside are over.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: As I understand it, these are affirmative orders introduced by the Government after the passage of the relevant Act, and the whole argument for doing this by affirmative order was that the Government were not prepared to implement the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 until the resources were available. I assume that by bringing the order forward at this time, although the Minister did not say so, the Government are making some commitment to providing those resources now.

Mr. McCartney: The Minister may wish to intervene to reply to that, and I hope that he will do so in the affirmative. My current experience and knowledge of constituents cases and the assessments that are taking place suggests that is not the case, but I shall be glad if the Minister can prove me wrong. I should be even more glad if he would give a commitment that once an assessment is carried out under the order local authorities will be given the resources to carry out the requirements of the assessment.
I assume that one of the areas of assessment of the needs of disabled persons-again, the Minister may


intervene to say whether my assumption is right—will be the assessment of the ability of mentally or physically disabled persons to undertake training and employment. Local authorities with a commitment to ensuring that mentally and physically disabled persons are given an opportunity to play a full role in society and are not simply placed on one side in day-care facilities already assess them for training and employment.
My local authority has such a training and assessment centre—the Fourways training assessment centre. The Department of Health has used that centre's facilities for training its staff in techniques for assessing mentally and physically disabled persons. Given that there is a care in the community policy and that the Government have given local authorities such as my own the commitment to provide facilities in the community for those discharged from hospital, it seems to follow that part of that discharge assessment should be an assessment for training and employment purposes. That being so, let us suppose that my local authority is left in the next financial year with about two dozen assessments of people coming out of hospital, and that those assessments show that some form of training must be provided—a small proportion of those persons have prospects of employment—where do the Government stand in terms of providing resources for my local authority to carry out its commitment? From the Minister's rather short statement, it appeared that no such resources would be forthcoming, so the assessments will lie in a social worker's desk not acted upon, and the disabled persons and their carers will be in the same position as they are now—scrubbing about for a meagre share of the local authority's resources.
What about respite for the carers? Section 8 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 provides that a local authority should take into account the abilities of the carer. My hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West made an impassioned and, in my experience, a genuine plea for carers. There are more than 9 million people looking after people with all forms of physical and mental disabilities—an aunt, an uncle, a son, a daughter, a brother, a sister, a father, a mother or a husband. They are nursing someone either on a short-term basis or on the basis of long-term care in the community. That nursing can be sustained only if the local authority can provide resources to ensure that the carer is protected and assisted.
Many of the cases on which local authorities must take emergency action are those where carers cannot cope any more, because of the pressures and the nature of the disability of the individual concerned or because there has been insufficient care taken about their needs—which could be the facilities provided in the home for the disabled person or additional assistance. For example, a local authority, when considering the needs of a carer, may say that the assistance of a home help is required for a period. The Government have indicated that there will be a few resources for those carers. When the system breaks down, the local authority must provide emergency services at great and additional cost to ensure that the disabled person and the carer are not put at risk.
What about aids and adaptations? There is a commitment in this order to assessing the needs of a disabled person in that respect. Many local authorities

over the past 10 years—through the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970—have identified tens of thousands of people in the local community who need assistance in the form of aids and adaptations. Those are personal aids or adaptations to their properties or even to a child's school, and other types of physical assistance to protect and enhance the life of a disabled person and sometimes the carer. As a result of Government cuts in resources, more and more local authorities are using the technique of reassessing criteria, whereby criteria are implemented in such a way that many disabled persons, who believe that they are entitled to assistance through aids and adaptations, find themselves turned down by a local authority agency. I believe that the provision for access to information will enhance the ability of a disabled person, or his or her representative, to challenge the sometimes unfair, impractical and downright unjust decisions of some social services departments, especially those controlled by Conservative local authorities, which want to cut back on the provision of aids and adaptations.

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend has been concentrating on the way in which local authorities will have their work cut out to carry out this provision. I wonder whether my hon. Friend has paid any attention to those people who currently live within the curtilage of the Tory-controlled Westminster city council who would be designated under this order. Those are the hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people sleeping rough, many of whom are disabled. We see them every morning and night. Is there any way in which they would be catered for under the order? Can my hon. Friend conceive of a situation where an authority such as Westminster city council, which is more concerned with selling off cemeteries than with this sort of provision, does not pay much attention to ensuring that people living rough, among whom would be many disabled, are taken into account?

Mr. McCartney: I have two things to say in reply, neither of them helpful to the disabled or to those who live rough in the community. Westminster city council has already redefined its criteria for dealing with its homeless so that it is rare that the mentally or physically ill who roam the streets of Westminster are catered for. Secondly, the Department of Social Security has almost completely removed funding for hostels for the mentally ill and disoriented in inner-city London. Many people sleeping rough in London tonight are doing so because of mental or physical disabilities. The Government have rejected those people and have withdrawn any funding to assist them, leaving it to the Salvation Army and other Christian organisations to look after those who, under the order, should have their needs assessed and catered for. That is the reality in 1989. In London tonight, as we talk here, people are not having their needs assessed and where they have been assessed cuts in Government resources mean that those assessments cannot be acted upon to the benefit of the disabled person.
Because of advances in medical technology, people with Down's syndrome are reaching middle age and even their 60s or 70s. The order will place a requirement on local authorities to give special consideration to the needs of the elderly disabled. They are a special and growing group of people with specific needs such as day care and respite care. They may have carers who are themselves elderly. A constituent of mine in his late 80s cares for his


mentally-handicapped son who is a pensioner. He is still caring for his son in the community, as he has done throughout his life. The assistance comes from the Labour-controlled authority in Wigan, but not all local authorities provide the same facilities. There is a patchwork of facilities throughout the country. The level of service and commitment often depends on the local authority.
I hope that the Minister will try to ensure that, whether the people who require the services through these assessments live in Wigan, Brighton or some Tory shire, the necessary resources are provided. Why should a disabled person in Wigan have day care and respite care while down the road in a Conservative-controlled authority that care would be denied because of cuts in local government budgets? If we are to look after the elderly and disabled in the community, there should be a minimum level of services based upon their assessments, irrespective of where they live.
The Minister should give the House a clear idea of his intentions on resources. Down's syndrome children may have educational, physical or training needs. Where are the resources for a planned programme of assessment during the development of such children? We do not want such a child to be assessed in its first months of life and then to be dependent on the commitment of the parents and the whim of the local authority throughout its life as a toddler, school child, teenager and adult. We require an ongoing assessment.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The hon. Gentleman, throughout a good deal of his speech, has gone very wide of the order. I have been tolerant, but as other hon. Members are waiting to speak I now ask him to return to the order before us.

Mr. McCartney: I was referring to assessment needs, especially those set out in the order, but I take the point, Madam Deputy Speaker. An assessment should not happen just once during a disabled person's childhood, but should continue to identify and monitor the needs of the child or the carer. We are not undertaking crisis management for the disabled, but providing resources and types of services based on an assessment of that child's needs as it develops in the community.
I take what you say, Madam Deputy Speaker. That is why I attempted to look at the assessment set out in the order. I thank you for giving me that leeway and I shall now give the Floor to one of my hon. Friends.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I must congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) on making the point firmly that the Government ought to make resources available when they are designating these functions.
I was very disappointed that the Minister introduced the order in such a perfunctory way. Before I deal with the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 and the designation of that measure, perhaps I could ask the Minister about the Access to Personal Files Act 1987. It says at the bottom of the order:
Section I insofar as it applies to personal information held for any purpose of the local authority's social services functions
shall be carried out by a social services committee.
But as I understand it, a social services function does not have to be carried out by the social services department itself, and may be taken on an agency basis.
I am aware that in the Greater Manchester area the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children has taken on some of the functions of the local authority in child abuse cases. It has done an extremely good job. It carries out agency work for the city of Manchester and perhaps Rochdale and one or two other authorities in that area.
Will the Minister explain to me, if the local authority has an agency such as NSPCC to carry out its functions, how far that body must make its files and records available to a person as a result of the measure. A social services committee might have to make available information that it holds, under rules laid down in the order, but can the Minister tell me the position where a body is carrying out a function on behalf of a social services committee?

Mr. Skinner: As my hon. Friend is asking that question of the Minister, who is not prepared to tell the House what the order is about—and that necessitates a lot of probing questions from my hon. Friend—perhaps he might also ask the Minister whether, within this broad remit, it would be possible to include, say, private residential homes for the elderly and the disabled? We might get into a lot of controversial areas, where people make large sums of money, in Tory-controlled council areas in the main, farming out these elderly and disabled people, and making a killing out of the taxpayer and the state. The net result is that in many cases some of those disabled and elderly people in places like Kent are not getting the proper treatment, as has been shown on television recently. Do those homes come under the order?

Mr. Bennett: I am not sure of the position, and I ask the Minister to explain what it is. Like my hon. Friend, I deplore the use of such facilities by local authorities. I see no justification for a local authority to subcontract its responsibilities for caring for the elderly. However, the role played by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children is unique, and it may be able to perform a useful function in the prevention of child abuse.
There remain a number of problems concerning access to information, non-accidental injury registers, and so on. I hope that the Minister will respond to the many questions asked by my hon. Friends, and those that I want to pose, and that he will throw some light on who Is responsible for allowing access to information when delegation takes place. The Minister will appreciate that where non-accidental injury is suspected a whole series of complications arise about to what extent one reveals that information. He will also be aware of the problems created by the difference in attitudes between social workers, who generally favour declaring information, and members of the medical profession, who are often reluctant to divulge anything.
The other part of the designation order concerns the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986. I hope that when the Minister replies he will expand on the question of statements relating to young people. When I served on the Committee dealing with the Education Act 1981, which set up the whole framework for statementing, concern was expressed at the way in which families often needed to contact the health visitor, social services department, and education


department. The Act established that it is the education department's responsibility to prepare the statements on young people.
That system works reasonably well, though from time to time I receive complaints that the preparation of statements does not proceed fast enough, and that some children wait a considerable time. I am very conscious that, occasionally, local authorities appear to prepare statements in relation to the facilities that they have available, rather than to the needs of the child in question, which is most unsatisfactory.
Concern was also expressed that, the statement having been prepared, there was doubt over what would happen to the young person on reaching 16 or 19 years of age. The point pressed home in the Education Act 1981, and in the Education Reform Act 1987, was the need to make statutory provision for the disabled from age 16 to 19. The Government resisted that proposal, which was a sad feature of their policy. The Government should make it clear that when young disabled people wish to stay in full-time education until age 19, they must have an absolute right to do so, rather than let it be a matter of local authority discretion. However, many local authorities have produced imaginative schemes offering education up to age 19, and in some cases well beyond that.
Section 5 suggests that at the point at which young disabled complete their full-time education, there should be a duty on the local authority to make a decision as to whether they should be designated as disabled and appropriate provision made for them. I feel certain that all right hon. and hon. Members want appropriate facilities to be made available—though I am equally certain that, at present, no such facilities are provided.
I should like the Minister to explain why, as I read section 5 and the order, responsibility should be handed over from education officials to social services officials. It seems to me that what upsets both parents and the young people themselves is to be passed on from one person who is supposed to be offering advice and assistance to another. Once contact has been established and they are on first-name terms with the person visiting, the family does not want to be introduced to someone else and have to explain all the difficulties again. This is particularly the case with regard to handicapped children. A detailed knowledge of what a young person can and cannot do is necessary. It gives offence if that has to be explained to somebody else who blunders in and asks whether the young person can do a certain thing, when anyone who had read the files carefully or knows the family well would know that the child could not manage to do that thing for himself or herself. This is something that causes the family anxiety and embarrassment.
I hope the Minister can explain why it is absolutely necessary to pass responsibility from the education department to the social services department at this moment. It would have been much more imaginative to leave the responsibility with the local authority. It could then decide whether it was more appropriate for these functions to be carried out by the education people or by the social services people within the local authority.

Mr. Skinner: Has my hon. Friend noticed the early-day motion that I have put down relating to the Derbyshire county council and the way in which it has managed to

introduce and increase help to what is called the Centre for Independent Living to enable disabled people to look after themselves? To what extent will they be covered by this order? Can my hon. Friend explain this or shall we have to ask the Minister?

Mr. Bennett: I am afraid my hon. Friend will have to ask the Minister.
I have had the opportunity of visiting several colleges in Derbyshire where they have been making very imaginative provision for young people between the ages of 16 and 19, and in some instances beyond 19. It is a very good example of a way to encourage people with handicaps to integrate within the student body. It is very interesting to see how the other students are, on the whole, supportive of people with multiple handicaps. It is of tremendous benefit to the young people themselves, to the other students and, of course, to the parents. What causes the parents concern, however, is that when these courses finish there is so often nothing available for the young persons. Therefore, it is very good that under this legislation the local authority should have a duty to plan what is to be available for the young people thereafter. It may not be the most appropriate thing suddenly to say that their education must stop at 18, 19, 21 or 23 and from then on somebody else has to deal with them. It may be that a young person will get sheltered employment; then it is a question of the Department of Employment and the opportunities that it can give. Or it may be that a young person will not be able to get paid employment of any sort, which may well mean a sheltered workshop or something provided by the local authority. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover that I very much appreciate the work that Derbyshire is doing.
Moving on to the question of carers, it is an important function of the local authority to ensure that an assessment of the carers in its area is carried out. I want the Minister to explain how he sees this assessment being carried out in those areas where local authorities and local health authorities are working together. I am very well aware that several of the joint-funded schemes which were to set up facilities for people returning to the community or for supporting carers have had their money progressively reduced on the basis that those schemes were to pump-prime and, once they were completed, the local authority would take over responsibility. The difficulty is that the Government have created major funding problems for local authorities.

Mr. McCartney: May I give an example of the capital and revenue consequences for local authorities taking on such joint functions? A scheme is currently being operated in Scot lane, Wigan, involving three children—severely mentally disabled—who have reached the age to leave their special school. The local authority has adapted a bungalow and provided resources through the regional health authority. Having taken on the commitment, the authority now finds, in the first financial year, that the cost of care is not £14,300 but £35,000 per child. The regional health authority has said, "Take it out of any surpluses in your budget."

Mr. Bennett: I accept my hon. Friend's point, and I am sure that the Minister, when he replies, will turn his attention to the problem of resources. It is good for such


legislation to exist, but it is nevertheless important for the Government to make money available, otherwise people's expectations are raised when they should not be.
Section 8 of the original Act—the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986—is entitled
Duty of local authority to take into account abilities of carer.
That is very important. But there is nothing worse than someone going around and asking carers what they are able to do and what support they need and then saying, "We cannot give you that support, because we cannot afford it." That, I am afraid, happens time and time again. I find it very distressing when people come to me in my constituency saying that they want their accommodation adapted and that the local authority, having made imaginative suggestions, then says that it cannot afford such adaptations.
Local authorities often delay payment. I sometimes suspect that they do so because they know that the way to avoid paying is to wait for the people concerned—particularly those who are elderly or disabled—to die before their accommodation can be adapted.

Mr. Skinner: I have listened carefully for about an hour to my hon. Friends, in the main—the Minister has not said much—and have come to the conclusion that there is something very sinister about the order. I am now convinced that it involves not only a transfer of designations but a question of passing the buck and the resources. My guess is that under the order local authorities will be burdened with having to carry out functions which will cost a hell of a lot and, because of demographic changes, will become increasingly burdensome. The net result will be that the Government will not provide the money.
I think that the proposal is merely cosmetic. It started off as a tiny little order, and we were supposed to believe that it did not really matter. There is a little explanatory note on the back. The Government do nothing unless it is part of a grand strategy, and I suspect that the present plan is to shift the provision of resources from taxpayers in the top bracket—who will be relieved of paying tax over and over again—and shove it on to the ratepayers. I think that my hon. Friend's last remarks hit the nail on the head.

Mr. Bennett: Indeed, every constituency in the country will be affected. My hon. Friend ought to know the history.
One of our hon. Friends was successful in the ballot and, in 1985–86, introduced a Bill to help disabled people. The Government did not have the courage to vote against it; they worked hard to water it down, but had to allow it on to the statute book. They then inserted at the end a provision that the legislation would not come into force until this and other orders were implemented.

Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend made an interesting analogy referring to the period between assessment of a person's needs and implementation of the requirement of that assessment. Many local authorities find that, having decided that someone needs a downstairs bath or bedroom extension, they must wait until the end of the financial year to see whether there is any slippage in the capital programme so that they can shift resources from one head of expenditure to another. Without such an arrangement

disabled people, having been assessed, will require more resources for the assessment to be carried out and the construction costs met.

Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend's intervention illustrates that, while a little help can be provided for the disabled by way of designation and the use of words, nothing can replace the provision of real resources. I gather that in 1986 the Government did not want to put up the money, otherwise they would have made it a more attractive measure, and they would not have insisted on it being watered down.
Since the 1986 Act was passed, the disabled organisations have been lobbying the Government to implement it, and the Government have spent nearly three years delaying its implementation. Now, by way of a designation order and with minimal explanation from the Minister, they are implementing it without mention of the money that will be necessary for local authorities to carry out their functions.
As a result, local authorities will have more duties and the expectations of the disabled will be raised. Those expectations will be dashed and the Government hope that the local authorities will get the blame. That fact must be nailed to the Government tonight, unless the Minister says that money will be forthcoming.

Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend referred to the assessment of need that will have to be made by the local education department and the social services department. Local authorities are currently trying, from their own resources, to implement the Warnock recommendations relating to the special needs of the disabled in a normal skilled environment. The order will create a conflict of interest between those two local authority departments. The social services department will have to make an assessment of, say, a disabled child, but that will involve the interest of, and resources belonging to, the local education department. Will the Government in future measures such as this try to reconcile the Warnock recommendations with the additional resources required to meet the special educational needs of the disabled?

Mr. Bennett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point.

Mr. Harry Cohen: I agree with the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) has been making about rate support grant cuts hurting the social services and about the Government not providing sufficient resources for disabled people and carers.
Is my hon. Friend aware that a serious legal problem could arise under the order? Under the headings "Enactment" and "Nature of functions", we read:
Section 1 insofar as it applies to personal information held for any purpose of the local authority's social services functions.
Then, under "Nature of functions", we read:
Obligation to give access etc.
In terms of the disabled, "access" means getting out and about. Does this mean having access to, say, the town hall or access to Parliament? The latter is absolutely rotten for the disabled. I am thinking of one of my constituents, a little girl with a wasting disease living in an upstairs room and not having access—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to make a speech, I am sure he will catch my eye. At the moment he is intervening and, I assume, putting a pertinent question.

Mr. Cohen: Does my hon. Friend think that a legal problem may arise from the use of the word "access" in the order? It may be concerned with access to information, but could it mean that local authorities must give access to all their disabled people to enable them to get out and about? If so, I welcome it, although it will make the gap between need for provision and lack of resources that much worse.

Mr. Bennett: I shall leave my hon. Friend to pursue that himself; perhaps the Minister will answer his point.
My questions for the Minister are: will the local authorities be given the resources with which to carry out their designated functions? How will the section dealing with the Education Act 1981 operate? Will it cause distress to families passing from the remit of the education departments to that of social services departments? Will he clarify the position of people carrying out agency responsibilities for social services departments?

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend has asked the Minister about five questions in five seconds flat. We all know that the Minister, who airily dismissed the subject at the outset, will not answer those questions. He thinks he is like his hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie)—he wants to be left alone; he will not give interviews to anyone; he will not go anywhere. It seems that the disease is spreading along the Tory Front Bench.

Mr. Bennett: Surely my hon. Friend always travels hopefully. The Minister has a vested interest in getting to the Dispatch Box and using some of the allotted hour and a half. If he does not answer our questions, we and the people outside the House will draw our conclusions: the Government will not put up any more money.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I am a bit concerned about this order. There seems little point in designating local authorities' functions if they are not given the money and the will to carry them out.
The functions listed include authorisation for representatives of disabled people to act as advocates. Voluntary organisations have already embarked on that in Bradford. There has been some argument about whether people who are trained by local authorities will push for community care or whether they can be fully independent. The order brings into effect the parent legislation, providing such representation through the local authority. I hope that the Minister can assure me that representatives will not represent the local authority point of view.
There is a large hospital for the mentally handicapped in my constituency, and there has been a move to close it. Parents and relatives of the patients, who are being well cared for in the hospital, are resisting that move because they strongly suspect that the plan is to close the hospital and use the land—set in a handsome part of Bradford, with rolling green acres and a cricket field—for building development. The site resembles a college setting. There was dispute about some of the case conferences involving patients in Westwood. The local authority policy at the time was to move people into community care—a position for which there is a case. But the people concerned, whose

views I stoutly defended, thought that the closure of an important facility such as Westwood hospital was an act on which there was no going back. If the community care proves to be faulty, and the local authority cannot cope because of the lack of Government funds, it is not easy to find the £750,000 required to reopen a redundant building, even if it is not immediately razed to the ground and sold off to developers. At the moment that is not envisaged because the regional health authority has the notion of forming a village community, part of the land being sold off to a developer, and the builder, in return, providing a number of designated houses so that there would be, as it were, care in the community, but with the back-up and community facilities of the hospital. It is absurd to suggest that there are, let us say, speech therapy facilities available for tiny groups in the community—perhaps half a dozen living in a community house. The facilities available at a specialised hospital such as Westwood could cater for 15 to 20, and one assumes that if people are out in the community they will come back.
My point is that there was a fear that the representatives would be appointed by the local authority and would present a local authority point of view exclusively without recognising the very great care provided and the virtue of retaining a hospital like Westwood.

Mr. McCartney: The situation is much worse than that. Regional health authorities automatically reduce the budget of the hospital where the disabled person—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have been listening carefully and the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) has strayed very far from the order. The hon. Member who is now intervening is going even further away. I call Mr. Cryer, to return to the order.

Mr. Cryer: Madam Deputy Speaker, I must point out that one of the enactments listed in paragraph 2 of the order, subject to exceptions, is the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986, sections 1 to 5, 7 and 8, which specifically provide for representation and assessment of disabled persons. The point that I was making, although it was a bit wide, was by way of illustration and concerned the authorised representation of disabled people.
I wish to add one or two brief points. I am concerned that if the local authority is to be designated to carry out those functions the Government will require them to do so. We have in Bradford a Tory-controlled local authority which, through the mayor's casting vote, has reversed a great many policies which I must tell the Ministers were carried out in some areas by consensus. The reason why we lost a by-election in Odsal ward in my constituency was simply that a lot of people thought that things would go on pretty much as before in terms of the provision of basic services. They have been horrified that the Bradford Tory-controlled local authority—the mayor-controlled local authority—is proposing to sell off 13 old people's homes.
If the local authority is busy getting rid of functions that everybody accepts are basic prerequisites of local authority care, what is the good of this sort of order? What is the point if a local authority such as Bradford is just going to ignore it or, indeed, discard it? As the Government are going to place these duties on local authorities, will they give them the necessary facilities—in


my opinion, Bradford council will use any excuse not to do these things—or will he require them to ensure that they understand and implement the order?

Mr. Freeman: This has been an illuminating debate, and I shall try, for the benefit of the whole House, to answer the questions that have been put to me.
The hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) talked about the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986. It is an Act very much associated with his name. The House will recall the Bill's proceedings three years ago. Sections 1 to 5, 7 and 8, as he correctly pointed out, deal with the representation and assessment of disabled persons. I confirm that the powers contained in the sections are being designated as being appropriate for discharge by a local authority social services committee.
The hon. Gentleman asked also about consultation with local authorities and with disabled and voluntary organisations. I confirm that there has been consultation not only with local authorities but with a wide range of interested parties, including voluntary organisations.
The hon. Members for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and Monklands, West asked about the implications of the order for the availability of resources to implement in particular the consequences of section 7. As the hon. Member for Monklands, West told the House, referring to a recent debate in the House, I confirmed that discussions between the Department of Health and local authorities were continuing—they have been going on for some time—about the financial implications of implementing the various sections of the 1986 Act which have not so far been implemented. I told the House that we hoped to bring those discussions to a conclusion in due course when we have analysed thoroughly the financial implications of the assessment and discharge from psychiatric hospitals into the community of those suffering from mental illness. As I said in that debate, it is very important to get right the assessment of the resources before taking further steps.

Mr. McCartney: When I met the former Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), she gave a commitment to come to Yorkshire to see the provision on the ground and to discuss the resource needs of my local authority. We cannot believe everything the hon. Lady says, but in the circumstances can the Minister say whether he is prepared to take on the commitment made last autumn to visit my local authority to see the assessments and to consider what resources are necessary?

Mr. Freeman: My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) had, and still has, considerable energy. I may not measure up to her ability to visit different parts of the country. If the hon. Gentleman writes to me, I shall consider his suggestion.

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: Can my hon. Friend enlarge on his statement? Earlier he used the words "in due course". Can he say whether that is likely to be the spring or the summer?

Mr. Freeman: This might be an appropriate moment, in seeking to answer my hon. Friend's question, to link the answer with the answer to another question about when

we expect to bring our conclusions on the Griffiths report to the House. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health said in the House about a week ago, we have not yet decided on the best way to proceed. We are still deliberating. As he said, we hope to finish our deliberations shortly and to bring our proposals to the House. I envisage that our conclusions in relation to the implementation of sections of the 1986 Act will fit into that framework. As I said in the Adjournment debate on the transfer of the mentally ill into the community, I am well aware of the concern felt on both sides of the House about the need for their continuing care in the community and for proper provision to be made.

Mr. Tom Clarke: I think it is accepted that Sir Roy, to the surprise of many people on the Government side of the House, saw a major role for local government. I hope we can be assured that the Government's hang-up, and especially the Prime Minister's hang-up, about local government will not impede them in reaching a sensible conclusion.

Mr. Freeman: The Government have no hang-up about local government. As I said, we are well aware of the importance of this issue. We are still deliberating and we will bring our conclusions to the House shortly.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) asked me a number of questions. He asked whether agencies such as the National Society for the Protection of Children were covered. The answer is no. As I am sure he appreciates, we are dealing only with the application to local authorities. However, I can tell him—and I am sure he knows this—that many voluntary organisations do have an open access policy to their records, and it is a policy that I, on behalf of the Government, very much appreciate and encourage.
The hon. Member also asks me about the clarity of distinction between local education authority functions and social services department functions. I draw his attention to section 5 of the 1986 Act. I think that there he will find the clear reference to those functions of a local authority which fall to the local education authority, or that part of the local authority's education functions, and I think that distinction is clear.
It is important to appreciate that the designation of functions order is to remedy a defect in the original private Member's Bill. That is not a criticism of the original Bill, but the effect of the order is to make it lawful for social services committees and directors of social services to deal with the 1986 Act and the 1987 Act.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Is it true that a young person on whom there is a statement kept will have guidance coming from the education department until he completes his full-time education, and at that point responsibility for that young person will be handed back to social services? Can he justify that?

Mr. Freeman: I do not wish to mislead the hon. Gentleman by giving him an answer which may be ambiguous. I understand the significance of the question and, although I do not believe it is directly relevant to this order, I do undertake to write to him.
He also asked me about the Education Act 1981 on statementing, that is, assessing special needs children. Of course, this is a matter more properly for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science


but it should be done in co-operation with the involved parents, and the information is often but not always shared.
I hope that I have dealt with and answered to the best of my ability the questions raised during this brief debate, and I hope that the House realises, as I am sure it does, that this order is dealing purely with the designation of functions to the local authority social services committee. The order is clear. It has been debated.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 108, Noes 0.

Division No. 82]
[11.58 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Amos, Alan
Cran, James


Arbuthnot, James
Cryer, Bob


Ashby, David
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd amp; Spald'g)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Beith, A. J.
Durant, Tony


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Boswell, Tim
Favell, Tony


Bowis, John
Fishburn, John Dudley


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Franks, Cecil


Burns, Simon
Freeman, Roger


Burt, Alistair
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Butler, Chris
Gill, Christopher


Butterfill, John
Gregory, Conal


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Ground, Patrick


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Carrington, Matthew
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Carttiss, Michael
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Chapman, Sydney
Harris, David


Chope, Christopher
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hind, Kenneth


Conway, Derek
Howarth, Alan (Strafd-on-A)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Howarth, G. (Cannock amp; B'wd)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)





Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Hunter, Andrew
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Irvine, Michael
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Jack, Michael
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Jackson, Robert
Speller, Tony


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Stern, Michael


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Stevens, Lewis


Knapman, Roger
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Summerson, Hugo


Knowles, Michael
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Lang, Ian
Taylor, Teddy (S'end B)


Lawrence, Ivan
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Thorne, Neil


Lightbown, David
Thurnham, Peter


Livsey, Richard
Twinn, Dr Ian


Maclean, David
Waddington, Rt Hon David


McLoughlin, Patrick
Walden, George


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Wallace, James


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Moss, Malcolm
Wareing, Robert N.


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Wells, Bowen


Neubert, Michael
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Wheeler, John


Norris, Steve
Widdecombe, Ann


Oppenheim, Phillip
Wood, Timothy


Paice, James
Yeo, Tim


Pawsey, James



Porter, David (Waveney)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Powell, William (Corby)
Mr. Stephen Dorrell and


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Mr. John M. Taylor.


NOES


Nil


Tellers for the Noes:



Mr. Dennis Skinner and



Mr. Harry Cohen.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Local Authority Social Services (Designation of Functions) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 19th December, be approved.

Access to Personal Files

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): It may be for the convenience of the House if we take motions 3 and 4 together. [HON. MEMBERS: "Object."] Objection taken. We shall deal with them separately.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman): I beg to move
That the draft Access to Personal Files (Social Services) Regulations 1989, which were laid before this House on 16th January, he approved.
Before I come to the substance of the access regulations, it may be helpful to hon. Members if I say a few words about the background to them. The regulations apply the Access to Personal Files Act 1987. That Act, as no doubt hon. Members will recall, was promoted with great sensitivity by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood). It was keenly debated in both Houses and was subject to extensive discussion in Committee.
The Data Protection Act 1984 enables people to know what is recorded about them in computer records. The regulations before us tonight are concerned with records which are not covered by the data protection legislation—they deal with records kept manually. However, in drafting the regulations we have sought as far as practicable to keep in line with the corresponding provisions in the data protection legislation so as to avoid confusion, particularly as an authority may be using both methods for keeping its records.
During the passage of the Access to Personal Files Act 1987 a commitment was given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Waddington), the then Minister of State, Home Department, that, subject to no difficulties being encountered in the consultation process, regulations would be made and that we would endeavour to make them by the end of 1988. We virtually achieved that and they will be made as soon as the necessary approval has been given by Parliament. In their preparation we have consulted widely with organisations representing local authorities, voluntary organisations, health service interests and other concerned bodies.
In the previous debate on the Local Authority Social Services (Designation of Functions) Order, I stated that we had followed that procedure strictly in relation to the draft order.
To allow authorities time to adjust their procedures, it is intended that the regulations should be brought into force on 1 April. To assist authorities, we are issuing guidance to them. Circular LAC (89) 2, which was issued in January, gave advice on social services records and is, of course, subject to approval being given to the regulations by Parliament; a copy of the circular is in the Library of the House.
Much interest was expressed during the passage of the 1987 Act in access to medical records—

Mr. James Wallace: I understand that the circular to which the Minister has just referred states, in relation to the charging of fees, that the authority will no doubt take into account applicants' ability to pay. Does that mean that his Department is encouraging local authorities not to charge any fee, or

does he envisage that local authorities may have a sliding scale of fees and decide whether to charge depending on the circumstances of a particular applicant?

Mr. Freeman: I shall deal with that point now, although I was intending to come to it a little later. The hon. Gentleman knows that the proposal is that there should be a maximum fee of £10, but it will be up to local authorities to charge at their discretion. I understand that some local authorities will wish to waive or abate fees depending on the financial circumstances of the individual seeking access to personal files. That is perfectly consistent with the regulations. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman's point.
As I was saying, much interest was expressed during the passage of the 1987 Act in access to medical records. Those records were excluded from the Act, but we undertook to hold talks with the medical profession on a voluntary code of practice on access to medical records. Those discussions are proceeding. An agreement has not yet been reached, although substantial progress has been made.
I am determined to see the establishment of a voluntary code shortly. If there is any question of further delay, I shall meet with the profession's representatives myself to ensure that a voluntary code is concluded satisfactorily. Once we have had the profession's agreement, I think it right that we should consult also other non-medical health professionals who maintain records on patients and those bodies that represent patients' interests.
After that outline of the background to the regulations, I turn to the regulations themselves, starting with the social services regulations. The Access to Personal Files Act 1987 takes forward the establishment of individuals' rights to know what was recorded about them by local authority social services departments. In 1983 the then Secretaries of State issued to local authorities in England and Wales general guidance on the principles governing disclosure of information in the records in question to people who were the subject of the information. The Secretaries of State said that they shared the increasingly held view that people receiving those services should.. subject to adequate safeguards, be able to discover what was said about them in those records.
The following year the Data Protection Act was enacted. This included provisions enabling individuals generally to see what was recorded about them in computer records. Orders were made under that Act to add to the general safeguards in relation to social work records.
There are circumstances where it would not be right to grant access to all the available information, and I will explain those circumstances, but first I should emphasise that it should be exceptional for information to be withheld and, even then, it should be possible to release most of the available information, though some may need to be made anonymously to conceal the identity of a third party. For the most part, information held manually in social service records will become readily available. I hope that the House accepts that sentiment and the general principle running through our approach in these regulations. In framing the regulations, we have kept as closely as possible to the provisions of the data protection legislation and the guidance issued by the Data Protection Registrar who has been consulted about them.
Following a request from an individual, a local authority will have to tell that person whether it holds


information about that person and to give that person access to it. That includes expressions of opinion. Although the Act does not confer a right of access to any indication of the intentions of the authority towards that person, we have recommended authorities to let him or her know of them. Generally, it is good practise to do so in the course of an individual's continuing care rather than waiting for a formal request for access. We have said that this should be seen as part of a process of encouraging users of services to participate as far as possible in actions concerning them. Similarly, the Act only requires access to be given to so much of a person' record, before these regulations come into force, as is necessary to make the accessible information intelligible. We have advised authorities that there is likely to be significant advantage in them making available as much information as possible. That could lead to a greater clarity and understanding of an individual's background, especially in a child care case.
Access may be by supplying an individual with a copy of the information or by such other means, such as letting that individual see the information. lf, however, the individual, having seen the accessible information, requires a copy of it, he or she must be given one. If any of the information is not intelligible without explanation, the individual is to be given an explanation of it. That would apply if, for example, the authority holds the information in a coded or abbreviated form or if it is in professional jargon which cannot be understood without the key to the code of meaning. The explanation should be sufficient to make the information intelligible to people unconnected with the authority. In some cases the individual may still not be able to understand fully the information, but should be able to take it to another person for advice.
As I have said, the authority will be able to charge a fee of up to £10 for access at its discretion.
Some of the information which the authority holds may contain material provided by a health professional. Where this is the case the local authority will have to notify the health authority, or the health professional person, if not employed by a health authority within 14 days of receiving the request. Where either the health authority or the health professional says that access must not be given to the information, or part of it, the local authority is relieved of its obligation to grant access. The circumstances where a health authority or health professional may do this are when access is likely to give rise to a risk of serious harm to the health of the individual or another person, or where access would enable a third party—other than a health professional—to be identified, or for him to be identified as the source of the information. I sense that the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) will ask for the definition of a health professional. He will find it in the details of the regulations.

Mr. Bob Cryer: The local authority will have a great deal of work to carry out. Is the Minister satisfied that the £10 fee—that is the maximum sum; the local authority might wish to charge less—will cover the cost of carrying out the work? If not, will the Minister provide money for local authorities to ensure that the regulations are carried out?

Mr. Freeman: The earlier intervention dealt with the effect of the regulations on the person making the application and the hon. Gentleman is more concerned about the financial consequences for the local authority. Clearly the local authority will look at the financial implications of the regulations by averaging the cost implications of all the applications made during the course of a financial year. It is not possible to guarantee—

Mr. Dennis Skinner: rose—

Mr. Freeman: I am still trying to answer the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). If the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) will contain himself, I shall reply as fully as I am able to his hon. Friend who is trying to elicit information from me in order to inform the House of these important regulations.
The local authority will consider the financial implications by averaging the number of applications made during the course of a financial year. Hon. Members will not expect me to give a guarantee that the cost of local authority personnel in preparing an answer to a particular access question will be covered. But during the course of a financial year I am sure that a local authority will look at the average costs. As I said earlier, it is open to a local authority to abate or waive a charge if the local authority believes that a certain category of residents in the local authority area deserve such treatment.
The local authority may withhold other information in certain circumstances. We have told authorities that that decision should be taken at senior management level. Information may be withheld because of a risk of serious harm to the health or emotional condition of the individual or a third party. We have said that withholding information on that ground would be most exceptional.
Information may also be withheld because the identity of a third party, other than a member of the staff or a paid carer, would be revealed or could be identified as its source. The local authority is required to notify a third party of the receipt of a request for access and to seek consent to access, but access may not be given without that consent unless the information can be made anonymous.

Mr. Skinner: The Minister said that the charge can be up to £10. Will that figure be a straight poll tax right across the board for everybody who wants access? What happens if at the end of a year a local authority discovers that the charge that is has levied is not sufficient to meet all the costs? Will the Government make up the difference? Will the Government give advice, as they did on charges for eye and teeth checks, that some will pay and some will not on the basis of means? What will happen if a local authority fails to charge sufficient to cover its costs? Will the Government foot the bill?

Mr. Freeman: The generous rate support grant settlements announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment for all local authorities in the financial year 1989–90 are more than sufficient to cover the costs involved in bringing into effect the regulations that I have been describing to the House.
If the authority does not receive the third party's consent within the 40-day time limit, the authority has to give access to as much of the information as possible without revealing the other person's identity or that the third party is the source of the information.
The local authority may also withhold information where it is held for the prevention of crime; where it comprises reports which magistrates courts may withhold; where it is subject to legal professional privilege; or where disclosure is restricted by the law relating to adoption or special educational needs.
Children who have the understanding to make a request for access are entitled, like adults. in accordance with the general law, to see what is recorded about them. Where a child does not have this capacity, a parent or a person with the legal power to act as a parent in relation to the child will be able to make a request for access for information recorded about the child.
Detailed guidance has been given to local authorities about dealing with a request from or in relation to a child, along the lines of that given by us in respect of the data protection arrangements. The access regulations allow an individual aggrieved at being refused access to appeal to a committee of the local authority. This is, of course, additional to any general rights that the individual has to apply to the courts—for example, for judicial review—or, in the case of maladministration, to the local government ombudsman.
The access regulations, along with the corresponding parts of the data protection legislation, provide individuals comprehensively with a right of access, subject to certain specified safeguards, to the records of the local authority services involved, whether they are kept on computers or by traditional means. The legislation is contributing to the development towards greater sensitivity to the needs of individuals in delivering services and support.
I expect that these sensible regulations will have the broad support of all hon. Members. They are very much in sympathy with earlier statements by Ministers about the implications of the 1987 Act and the Data Protection Act, and I commend them to the House.

Mr. Tom Clarke: I am sorry that the Minister thought that I was attempting to intervene when I was merely shaking my head at his statement about the generous rate support grant. I had the privilege of visiting the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) a few months ago, and I discovered that his local authority was threatened with rate-capping. It had responsibilities in social services but could not carry them out. We do not want the Government to say, as a result of the order, that authorities will have to raise the money from some other aspect of the social services budget. I fear that many authorities will be in that position.
The order deals with access to personal files and social services obligations. It relates not just to the Data Protection Act 1984 but to the Access to Personal Files Act 1987 which was introduced by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) and has made such an impact on our discussions. The access provisions would allow people to examine records kept manually or in any other non-computerised form. It is true that good practice already exists in some local authorities, which are already preparing for the orders because they believe in the individual rights that the orders and the Act embrace. We cannot disregard this need. Local authorities and their associations rightly remind us time and again of the need for training so that they will have staff capable of

dealing with the problems of administration. All that must be adequately resourced. Following a request from an individual, the local authority will have to tell that person whether it holds personal information and give him or her access to it.
Other arrangements can be made to satisfy the rights of the citizen. The Minister has referred to the fee, and there has been an exchange about that. We understand that at the moment the maximum would be £10. There is in that a whiff of a means test. People should not have to satisfy a test of that kind to obtain information to which they are entitled.

Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend agree that a local authority such as Bradford, which is Conservative controlled by virtue of the mayor's casting vote, will tend to charge the maximum fee while Labour—controlled authorities, keen on open government, will tend to impose lower fees? Labour authorities will then be criticised for devoting resources to providing a service that the Government urge them to support.

Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend, with his experience of Bradford's newly-elected authority, will be proved right. The tragedy is that the Government will blame local authorities—saying that it is a matter of choice, and that local authorities are denying people the information to which they are entitled. In the absence of proper resourcing, we are entitled to make that charge.

Mr. Skinner: In the event of a Tory-controlled local authority, such as Bradford, being hell bent on charging maximum fees while a neighbouring authority charges, say only £2, the public and local authority employees may be so incensed that the information will be leaked for nothing. The Government are adept at leaks. Their files appear to be scattered all over Whitehall and Westminster, with people picking them up at will. Brown envelopes arrive in everyone's mail every other week. It is conceivable that someone offended by massive charges being imposed by a Tory-controlled authority such as Bradford may say to himself, "I feel sorry for the public—they have been mistreated already under the social services provisions and they need the information that I can provide." That individual may be tempted to release the information by using the system of leaking—the Westland form of leak—so widely employed by the Government.

Mr. Clarke: Bradford appears to be emulating many aspects of the Government's approach which we find unacceptable. I trust that in respect of leaks, Bradford's Conservatives will not be so foolish as to follow the Government's lead—otherwise they may find themselves in Europe. However, if I develop that point, you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will instruct me to return to the subject of the debate.
The Minister spoke of exemptions from the general provisions of the order. He mentioned health, professional persons, and so on. Those are important exemptions, and when the Data Protection Bill was debated we learned the reasons for them. Nevertheless, we must be careful to avoid abuses and to ensure that the public fully understand why those exemptions exist.
We have the advantage of having previously debated a similar order in respect of Scotland. When the Minister replies, I hope that he will make more relevant responses


than did his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), who may have answered off the cuff but did not enter into the spirit of the Access to Information Act 1984 or of the order. On that occasion, there was a discussion about children's panels, which do not exist in Scotland. Perhaps the Children Bill will correct that omission.
We welcome the consultations that the Minister says have taken place, but I should like more detail than the outline given in the hon. Gentleman's introductory speech. Perhaps he will provide that later. Nevertheless, the order gives meaning to the Data Protection Act 1984. Social workers agree that it will lead to the provision of better records, and to more informed decisions by social workers. Such records are by their very nature complex, containing a mixture of opinion and fact and a great deal of third-party information, but some of this makes it difficult to open up such records widely to the public.
My hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith), who has considerable experience of these matters in the Health Service, made it clear that the Labour party is utterly committed to opening up medical records as well. Our commitment is based firmly on extensive consultation and, by agreement with the medical profession, ensuring all the necessary safeguards. If the Government have been involved in consultation to the extent that the Minister claims, can he tell us whether we are any further forward in opening up medical records even on a non-statutory basis? The House looks forward to his reply on that point.
The £10 maximum that the Minister suggested did not seem to be all that much but might be different for a person on income support. Happily there are councils, including Strathclyde, which have decided to exercise their discretionary power and say there will be no charge at all, and it may be that even Bradford will catch up on that laudable approach. What is interesting—the Minister referred to this—is that the DHSS does not plan to charge for similar information under the Data Protection Act 1984. The Minister might consider whether charges mean that we are putting up a barrier which might prevent some people, perhaps many people, from seeking the information to which they are entitled.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend accept that many such people will be young people in care, who would naturally turn to those responsible for that care—the social services department—to come up with the fee? It should be absolutely clear that anyone up to the age of 18 who is being financed by the local authority ought not to be charged.

Mr. Clarke: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. He has made the point that very often the people most in need of information and with the greatest right to have access to it will be penalised because they simply cannot afford to get it.
The Minister has confirmed that 1 April will be the date of introduction of this measure. The lead-in time seems rather short and notwithstanding the consultations there are bound to be difficulties with third parties, professionals, and so on, who may not necessarily be acquainted with the obligations. I wonder just how difficult that timescale will be seen to be.
The Minister used the expression "serious harm" yet again today. Serious harm and, indeed, harm in itself really ought to mean that we have a clearer definition of what is involved. We are being told that people cannot have access to information because it would lead to serious harm according to somebody's interpretation. We are entitled to know whose interpretation it is, where the expression arises and how meaningful serious harm will be in application.
Does the Minister agree that the 40-day rule could definitely cause problems, for example if the consultant was on holiday? If no reply is given within 40 days it is accepted that the information can be made available, but the consultant, on reflection, might not have wished that.
The Under-Secretary of State, when responding to this point in the Scottish debate, said that another consultant could give an opinion, but the other consultant might not be so aware of the circumstances as the consultant dealing with the case. Therefore, although we endorse the principle that there be a number of days allocated, it is important that the Minister should monitor that. I raise this constructively if only because it is right to bear in mind the views of the applicant, to whom 40 days may well seem a very long time.

Mr. Skinner: There could be a further complication. My hon. Friend has referred to consultants and the 40-day period. We heard a few days ago that the Government intended to introduce new proposals for hospitals and others to opt out. That will affect consultants very seriously. Is it just conceivable that the order could be overtaken by a Bill changing the procedures affecting consultants? Might not the whole arrangement, in certain circumstances, become deformed?

Mr. Clarke: I have no doubt that my hon. Friend, with his sharp intellect, has identified yet another possible defect. It would not surprise me in the least if we saw such examples.
The financial burden on local authorities is obvious, but even if pilot schemes are to take place the Government have given no indication of their global thinking or their attitude to proper resourcing. Will the Minister look sympathetically on requests that he receives from local authorities anxious to carry out their statutory duties and to respond to individuals' right of access to information? Have the implications of the regulations been discussed with the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work? Certainly everyone involved in social work takes the view that training is important. New obligations are being placed on social workers. They are the subject of constant unfair criticism, and I think it right that we should ask whether that body has been asked for its opinion.
What are the implications for the voluntary agencies? Again, there must be cost implications. I trust that a Government who claim to believe in "voluntarism" have taken that point on board.
In the earlier debate one of my hon. Friends referred to the number of mentally handicapped and mentally ill people in prison. Perhaps we should also hear about any problems and costs imposed on the prison service.
The regulations do not seem to lay an obligation on local authorities to notify people when parts of the record are withheld. In my view, people should know when information is not complete. The Data Protection Act


1984 provides a right of appeal first to the registrar and then to the courts. I invite the Minister to deal with that in his reply.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), who introduced the Access to Personal Files Act 1987, must feel somewhat disappointed. Clearly even the regulations as presented by the Minister are bound to lead to delays and extra costs. I wonder whether they reflect properly the spirit of the Act and the fact that it was so well received by the House. There are times when I feel that the Government display indifference, if not at times hostility, to Acts that are on the statute book as a result of the activities of private Members. That is most unfortunate. That Act, in common with others, arose because of the will of both Houses—reflecting, we hope, some measure of democratic input—and the Government should respect such views.

Mr. James Wallace: As previous speakers have pointed out, the regulations implement provisions of an Act piloted through the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), who deserves much credit for his dedication and application—although I am sure that he would acknowledge that he received widespread support from both sides of the House.
It should also be acknowledged that the Government have stuck reasonably closely to the timetable that was envisaged. The end of 1988 was given as the first date when these instruments would be introduced, and April 1989 does not represent too much slippage.
Exemption on the ground of serious harm represents some progress. I share the reservations of the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) about how that will be defined, but the fact that it is "serious harm" rather than, as originally proposed, simply "harm" is a step forward. Had it remained as "harm", a coach and horses could have been driven through the provisions.
When the measure was going through, there were, among many other areas where access to personal files was sought, calls for access to personal files in respect of education and further education. That call was withdrawn on the understanding that separate powers already existed in legislation which would enable the Government to bring forward in due course similar instruments for information to be made available in those circumstances. When does the Minister hope to publish that instrument—I understand that a consultation paper concerning schools has already been issued—and when will it come into force?
We should emphasise the significance of what we are doing. It is fundamentally right that people should see what is recorded about them on social services records. Apart from anything else, it gives them an opportunity to detect and correct mistakes which, if they were allowed to remain on the record unamended, could be damaging and not be in their personal interest. It allows them, one hopes, to have more say in decisions that might affect them. It acts as a discipline on those who keep records in that, hopefully, they will be more objective in what they record, avoiding unfair comments which, if put to the test, could not readily be substantiated.
It is regrettable that we are going about these matters in a piecemeal fashion. The Act and these instruments give rights to the citizen in regard to manual records which, in

most respects, already exist for computerised records under the Data Protection Act 1984. So we have that Act for computerised records, these provisions for dealing with social services records, and another instrument, to which we shall come, relating to housing. Even so, that does not cover all the areas where one would like to have better access to information on individuals.
The instrument now before the House does not relate to local education authorities. welfare services or school psychological services. My hon. Friend's Act did not extend to housing associations, not because of any lack of desire on the part of my hon. Friend but because he realised that if he was to get his legislation through, it had to be in narrower terms that he would have liked.
Bearing in mind that, in the last Session, my hon. Friend succeeded with a measure covering medical records for employment and insurance purposes, it is clear that hon. Members in all parts of the House will continue to introduce or support private Members' Bills to extend the rights of the individual to have more information—and, in this case, information about themselves. It is regrettable that there could not be more general acceptance of the need for that so that it could be included in a global Bill, rather than having to proceed in this piecemeal fashion. We live in hope.
In his introductory remarks, the Minister referred to medical records and said that discussions were still taking place. I understood him to say that if progress was not made in the near future, he would intervene personally.
It is regrettable, too, that almost two years have elapsed since the then Minister of State, Home Office, now the Patronage Secretary, said in Committee on 1 April 1987:
If more openness is what hon. Members on both sides of the Committee want, they should know that they are pushing at an open door. The Government and the profession are in favour. Therefore, I am willing to give an undertaking today on behalf of my colleagues with responsibilities for health that they will enter into talks with the medical profession at an early stage with a view to achieving substantive and timely progress in opening up medical records further on a non-statutory basis."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 1 April 1987; c. 60.]
Perhaps something has got stuck behind that open door—perhaps it is still ajar. I hope the Minister will give it a good push. We have waited a long time, and it would he interesting to know where the log jam originates. If the Minister cannot give us a timetable for introducing a scheme, perhaps he will tell us how long he is prepared to wait before intervening personally. We are due a better and fuller explanation of what is going on.
Of course, in some circumstances it will not be in the interests of a person that full information should be given out. Serious harm could result in some cases. But it would be helpful to know whether the information given was all the information being held. The regulations do not provide for that, but it should be encouraged as a matter of good practice.
I also have serious reservations about the review of decisions in paragraph 11. If one is dissatisfied with a decision, one can appeal to a committee composed of three members of the same authority that made the decision. That conflicts with the Data Protection Act 1984. Much has been done to try to keep these two legislative spheres in parallel. Under that Act, people have recourse to the registrar and then to the courts. The Minister said that a person who is dissatisfied can take his case, by means of judicial review, to the courts, or appeal to the local


authority ombudsman. However, those are cumbersome courses of action, and not as simple for a person who is anxious for information as direct recourse to the courts. Practice may show this up as a weakness in the regulations. If so, I hope the Government will think again.
I have already brought up the issue of the £10 fee in an intervention. The legislation has compelled local authorities that might otherwise be dilatory and reluctant to provide social services information to adopt the good practices that are already practised by many others. Many authorities have adopted the 1983 circular encouraging them to good practice—but that guidance did not mention fees. Local authorities often give information without charging, and it would be regrettable if they now used their option to charge. Those most likely to need to call on social services departments for information will often—not always, but I suspect a strong correlation—be people in the lower income brackets.
In his reply to my intervention the Minister indicated that it would be possible for a local authority to waive or abate a particular fee. That, so far as it goes, is quite welcome, but it opens up the quite clear possibility that local authorities will have to introduce some rather complicated guidelines of their own to deal with the circumstances in which a fee may be waived or abated. It will involve at least some minor degree of means-testing, and I think it would be very preferable if no fee at all were to be charged. That would certainly be far simpler, and, as I have said already, would continue the practice that, in many cases, exists already.
The fee is charged for application and it is retained even if the applicant gets no information. This could cause considerable annoyance if, having paid the fee, one got no information, either because it had all been withheld or because there was no information there in the first place. It might have been fairer if the fee had related to information given—if there were to be a fee at all.
It is my understanding—and the Minister can correct me if I am wrong—that in addition to the fee of up to £10 that can be charged for manual records, access to which is covered by the present regulations, a £10 fee can be charged for access to computerised records under the Data Protection Act. If one's records are both held manually and computerised there is the possibility of having to pay£20. There would appear to be a possibility of an—I was going to say "anomaly", but that is not the word—of double-charging. Of course, we cannot amend this instrument, but the Minister could consider for the future whether it might be possible to have one complete fee of £10 to cover both. That would be an advantage.
We certainly welcome these regulations. The Act which my hon. Friend did so much to get on the statute book is now moving to the stage where it will come into operation. I have indicated a number of areas in which it will come into operation in a manner that is not as satisfactory as we should like. Further, it relates to a more limited area than I know my hon. Friend would have liked to see. None the less, the regulations are welcome for going as far as they do.

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: I should like to question the Minister briefly about paragraph 10 of the regulations. The erasure of inaccurate information raises in my mind the question of what privilege is enjoyed by those whose opinions will be made available to the person who has asked to be allowed to see his personal records.
One naturally thinks that the right to see one's records is a sign of openness and that there is nothing to hide, but I often wonder whether we are not too easily led in the view that merely seeing what is written about oneself will somehow enlighten one without raising doubts in one's mind or, conceivably, according to one's temperament, a feeling that somebody has written something about one that is distasteful which impugns one's honesty or one's honour. I wonder, therefore, whether it might not actually do more harm than good.
People talk about their desire to see medical records. I certainly do not want to see my medical records. I do not want to know what my consultant thinks about my life expectancy. I might get a nasty shock, which I would rather not have. However, since we are now talking about social security, that is perhaps an argument for another day.
On the question of inaccurate information, or an opinion that the person reading his records does not like, what protection is given to those who have provided that information or expressed that opinion? Would it be possible for a person, having seen his personal record, to he in a position to allege that it represented a libel on his character?
My hon. Friend the Minister took some trouble to explain to us that it was possible that certain information could be retained by the authority on the ground that it might be harmful to the recipient. That is an essential safeguard. Nevertheless, if frank and honest opinions are to be given and placed on a record—that may be an important consideration if the records are to have any validity for those who are to use them—there is always a danger that those opinons will reach the person who has asked to see his personal record, and who may rightly judge from the remarks that a libel has been written and that he has therefore been damaged.
How do we safeguard the person who writes the opinion? Is it written into the regulations and have I missed it? Do the regulations convey a certain privilege for those who write the opinions? If not, will we fall into the situation where records will be so anodyne that they will not be much use to the social security service which may want to use them and will be written simply because somebody—the person whose records they are—will see them, or will the records continue to perform the role that they have performed in the past as a valuable guide which, due to their confidentiality, could contain all the information and opinions that were felt necessary to assess a person and his position? I hope that my hon. Friend can reassure me about paragraph 10. I look forward to hearing what he has to say.
1.1 am

Mr. Harry Barnes: I wish to raise two points, one about whether the regulations deal carefully enough with the handling of sensitive information and the other about resources. The right of access to information is important, but it is recognised in the


regulations that it cannot be an absolute right. The information about an individual might reflect upon a third party and the third party information should not be readily available to the first person.
On exemptions, paragraph 9(4) refers to
information … held by the local social services authority for the purposes of—

(a) the prevention or detection of crime, or
(b) the apprehension or prosecution of offenders".
The paragraph says that that information would not be made available. Is that provision tight enough? If the case work of a social services department involved child molesting, the detection of a crime, the prevention of a crime or a potential prosecution might not take place because, although the social services department had a great deal of information, it could not take action. Are the regulations tight enough to cover such a case? Other hon. Members may put forward better cases which do not refer to the molesting of children.
The other question I wish to raise concerns resources. Local authorities have been under considerable pressure generally for some time with cuts in the rate support grant, quite apart from recent adjustments. In Derbyshire, for instance, we have something known as "grant capping" as well as rate capping in other areas. It might be that in quite difficult financial circumstances these regulations will be acted upon, systems will be set up, and the next stage will be that the poll tax will come into operation, with all the difficulties that involves. Already in Scotland the poll tax levels are much higher than was suggested by the Minister, and that is likely to happen in England and Wales as well. The difficulty will be that procedures may be established for which funds could be found by local authorities, but at some later stage the whole system will fall into disuse because of the great financial burdens being placed upon them. I really think some financial provision should be made by Government in order to see that the system works properly.
It has been suggested that the £10 fee, which is the maximum, could in some cases prevent certain people using the system. I think it is quite likely that the costs in many cases will he at the £10 level, or even more, because of the areas involved. Local authorities may reduce the fees, but it is likely that some local authorities will be faced with far greater pressure to reduce fees than others. It will depend what the demand for information is.
It is quite likely that access to information legislation will be used more by middle-class people, who are much more aware of their rights and know the procedures involved. It might be appropriate for them to pay a £10 fee, but in many working-class areas, with progressive authorities providing full information as to what becomes available, the practice will be extended, or would be if the funds were available for it to be done.
I just want to look at the different areas involved in this to get some idea of what will happen in terms of the complexity of the measure and the fees authorities are likely to find themselves involved in. The procedure for requesting information is laid down in section 3. It might be that, when the procedure is pursued, insufficient information has been required and the matter has to go back to the people who initially made the application. There are various time limits in which information has to be sought. Then there is the whole complex area about

exemptions, both in terms of personal health information from health professionals and the other exemptions, partly referred to in section 10.
Turning to the procedure for the erasing of information, the hon. Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) raised the point about the erasing of opinions. I would like the Minister to say how far that actually applies within section 10. Is it the case that when it says information is to be erased, that is supposed to apply to factual information, empirical detail which can be checked as being true or false, as distinct from judgment and opinion, even though it might be very reliable judgment and opinion, on which it is not possible to use empirical techniques? Is the entire material erased? If the empirical information is erased, perhaps there would be nothing for the value judgment to latch on to.
Finally, there is a review of possible decisions and appeals against provisions. Therefore, the procedure involves great complexities which are likely to become extremely expensive. I believe that we should spend large sums of money on civil liberties and democratic rights and procedures so that people can exercise those rights, but the local authorities need to be in a position to operate the system.

Mr. Harry Cohen: The instrument about access to personal files relates to freedom of information and freedom to information. I agree with some of the anxieties that have been expressed from both sides of the House.
First, I wish to refer to the £10 fee that can be incurred under the Data Protection Act 1984 and under the instrument. I believe that it will create all sorts of problems, a couple of which have already been mentioned. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) raised the very good point about manual files costing £10 in addition to computer files so that a £20 charge could be incurred. Under the Data Protection Act, Government Departments set up all sorts of files. They could charge £10 for access to each file so that in some cases a fee of hundreds of pounds could be incurred. What is to stop a local authority setting up all sorts of files within its social services department and then charging £10 for access to each file? It is difficult enough for the person seeking the information to know which file to ask for, so he would have to ask for them all and pay the fee for the lot.

Mr. Wallace: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge and give credit to the Department of Social Security which does not charge a fee for access to its computerised files under the Data Protection Act. One hopes that local authorities will follow that example.

Mr. Cohen: I certainly hope that other Government Departments will follow that example, but we cannot be sure that they will. The £10 fee is a dangerous issue because social services departments deal with some of the poorest people in the community to whom £10 is a lot of money. The £10 fee will effectively stop those people getting access to their files. The system will be unfair on individuals with similar cases as it will vary from area to area as one authority takes an enlightened view and makes no charge and another authority charges the maximum £10. That is not a fair way to deal with individuals. Therefore, the Minister should think again about the fee.
As the Minister said, there is broad agreement that there should be access for individuals about whom the records are kept. But he went on to list a whole range of exceptions. For example, health authorities have only to say that a case is an exception and it automatically becomes one. I believe that that is wrong. Why should a health authority have more rights than a local authority social services department? They are both dealing with sensitive problems, so why should health authorities have more rights to secrecy? In many cases, they are already excessively secret and that is wrong. At least local authorities have democratic representatives—councilors£whom individuals can lobby for information, but they do not have such a right with the health authorities. The exception for health authorities is too blanket an exception.
Why have health professionals got special blanket privileges? Under the schedule, even people such as chiropodists, art therapists and music therapists have only to say that the information cannot be made public for people to be stopped from obtaining the information that they want. That is ridiculous. The schedule should be more carefully thought out than that. An ingrowing toenail should not be sufficient to prevent a person from getting his social services records.
Where information is specifically given by a doctor or other health professional on a confidential basis, there is possibly a good reason for the exemption applying. But I remember the Cleveland case. The Minister should have addressed the exemption in relation to that case because the parents who were aggrieved and trying to obtain justice for themselves thought that it was the health professionals who were to blame. They would not be helped by the regulations because the health professionals still have a special privilege of secrecy. Such parents would not obtain the information they wanted from the files, but would have to rely, yet again, on trying to force a huge public inquiry. They could not even rely on the courts to obtain information because another of the exemptions is the magistrates courts under the Magistrates' Courts (Children and Young Persons) Rules 1988. They would be blocked there and that is another exemption stopping people from obtaining information in cases of acute concern affecting their own children when their rights to look after their children had been impugned. A parent often needs to have access to the social services department's information on the case in a magistrates court to fight a child care order that they feel is unfair and to challenge the social services, or at least be able to present their case. The exemption will prevent them from doing that.
The Minister mentioned another exemption in cases in which the social services department felt that trauma or emotional damage could be caused. The Minister said that that would be used in rare cases to stop information being given, but it seems to me that that could apply to almost all social services cases. If a social services department wanted to be bloody-minded, it could use that exception in all cases and it would become a commonplace excuse to stop people obtaining information. It could be an enormous loophole, and the Minister should consider that. If the exemption is likely to be abused, the Minister should take action.
Another exception in which people cannot obtain information to which the Minister referred was cases in which a third party was identified as the source of information. Again, there could be a genuine case in which the third party should not be identified, especially in a child abuse case, and we all accept that people should not be discouraged from reporting serious child abuse. Again, there should be the right to challenge, perhaps in a court, because it may be that a third party is unreliable or even malicious and that, because of the use of the exception, the individual affected does not have the chance to challenge.
The final exception that I shall raise is what the Minister called the "legal profession's privilege". Exactly what does that mean? After all, several Conservative Members have signed a motion seeking to get rid of the closed shop. This sounds like a closed shop. Why should the legal profession have a right of exemption over what information people can find out about themselves from their files? I cannot envisage what the Minister's phrase means, so will he please explain it?
I appreciate the Minister's point about the local government ombudsman. I think that we should extend that provision to the health ombudsman so that people who want to complain about health authorities or health professionals unjustly denying them access to their information can go to the health ombudsman.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) and the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland that there should be a proper appeals arrangement with the data registrar. Under the Data Protection Act 1984, for example, the data registrar can investigate and the courts can also become involved. A proper appeals procedure should be available.

Mr. Ian McCartney: Like my hon. Friends, I welcome the opportunity to discuss the regulations, and the fact that the Government are prepared to put into operation provisions that will, for the first time, give a great deal of access to clients who, in the past, have been wronged by information in their files which, in many instances, had been secured for legitimate reasons by social services departments because the nature of the information in the files acted to the detriment of clients and their representatives.
In these days when we are trying to persuade people to come forward with cases of abuse—whether physical, sexual or mental—we are sensitive to the way in which the guidelines are operated. Will the Minister therefore tell us what additional provisions there will be for training social workers in the provision and presentation of information? It is essential for the operation of access to personal files that social workers, social services departments and those involved with the files and the information in them can interpret them properly and give a clear understanding of their objectives, of the information required and of the way in which the information is provided. Unless there is training in the provision and preparation of information, the wrong information could be provided, to the detriment of the physical and mental health of the individual concerned, or it could be used as an excuse for not providing information that should be provided.
I will give the Minister some examples of cases with which I have been involved, either as a Member of Parliament or in my previous occupation in personal social


services case work. The information that I provide is confidential and will not be presented to attract any publicity for the individuals concerned, nor does it present any criticism of those involved with the cases. It simply shows how the system as currently operated breaks down and where the personal files provisions could assist in ensuring, I hope, that such cases will not occur in the future.
The first case involves a mother and daughter relationship. A health worker notified the social services department that the unmarried mother was commencing a relationship with a gentleman known to have suffered mental illness in the past. Although she felt that there were no signs of mental illness now, she felt that a serious relationship between that man and woman could be detrimental to the child's development. The mother was then approached by a case worker from the social services department, who advised her that that report had been submitted. The mother's views were then sought about the relationship. She openly admitted that the relationship was continuing and developing and that she was not prepared at that stage to indicate to the care worker, or anyone else, that the relationship would end.
A report was immediately initiatied by the social services department, which included the suggestion of removing the child from the mother. The report concluded, however, that there was no evidence of physical abuse to the child by the mother or by the gentleman. There was also no evidence from the child's voluntary play school, other than that the mother was an excellent mother, and there were no problems with the child's development, physically or mentally. Yet three months on, that child was not only removed from the mother—without any access to information as to why that should have happened—but was offered for long-term fostering. Absolute access was refused by the magistrates on information submitted by the social services department. Because a third party provided information about that mother's relationship—which was subsequently found to have no real substance in the mind of the care worker concerned—the mother was separated from her child. The child was offered for long—term fostering by the social services department concerned, which one assumes would lead to a complete breakdown in the relationship between mother and child and the child then being offered for adoption.
The second case relates to a couple applying to the local authority to become foster parents after seeing an advertisement in the local paper. This is a mature couple, with two teenage daughters and a young lad of seven or eight. After extensive investigations by the local authority, the parents were advised that all that the local authority was waiting for were reports from the local police and from their former local general practitioner. The parents were told, however, that the local authority was so satisfied with the arrangements that an introduction to a handicapped girl would be facilitated for a couple of weekends so that they could all get to know each other. The intention was that that handicapped child would be fostered by the couple. The weekend prior to the fostering arrangement being formalised, a social worker went to the family home and advised the parents that one of the reports for which they had been waiting contained information such that the authority could no longer proceed with their application to become foster parents.
The result was a horrendous situation in which the couple believed that one or other or both must have concealed from each other in formation about their past so mucky or detrimental as to prevent them from fostering a child. Naturally, that affected their relationship.
After further pressure, the social services area director met the couple and reassured them that the authority intended to take no action with regard to their own children. The authority accepted, and did not retract the view, that the couple were excellent parents to their own children, but due to third-party involvement it could not give any indication of the reasons why at the 23rd hour it had rejected the couple's application to foster a child. The arrangement to seek information, a qualification of information or to have information amended is essential in such cases.
I cite the further example of a single mother involved in care proceedings. An anonymous telephone call to a local authority initiated an investigation of whether the mother was abusing her child—not physically or mentally, but that she was leaving the child on its own. Initial inquiries revealed that the allegation was unsubstantiated, but in the interim investigations it was discovered that the mother was associating with a gentleman whom the local authority had on record as possibly having been involved in the abuse of a child. On the basis of that information, the child was removed from the mother and remains in local authority care.
Personal files often contain subjective—sometimes highly subjective—comment and third-party comment may be highly irregular. An anonymous contribution might be regarded as substantial despite the fact that initial investigation might show that it was unsubstantiated. Anecdotal information may take on a significance that it should not have. Access to files should be given at the earliest opportunity, particularly when files go before case conferences, and it should be possible to challenge information provided by outside agencies. On many occasions disruption to a family's life occurs at the point when information is submitted to a case conference at which parents may be inadequately represented or not represented at all.
Access to personal files should be implemented in such a way as to protect the client and, in many instances, the children. It should also be borne in mind that in many instances outrageous decisions are taken which destroy the fabric of ordinary decent families, disrupting their lives, and they have no redress because they cannot challenge the information contained in the files. Therefore, I welcome the regulations.

Mr. Freeman: In the approximately six minutes that remain I shall seek to answer some of the points raised.
The hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) referred to the means test. I stress again, as I pointed out when I opened the debate, that the sum of £10 is a maximum discretionary amount. It might be for the convenience of the House if I draw attention to the guidance notes issued to local authorities. In those we have said that authorities will no doubt take into account the applicants' ability to pay. That discretion is commendable and gives flexibility to local authorities.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman asked about staff, training and allied costs and resources available to local


authorities. As the House will know, local authorities have been well aware since 1983—some six years—that we were encouraging access to information for local residents, so local authorities should have been putting into practice over the past five or six years access arrangements.
We have always encouraged open access. Many social services departments already operate open access policies. They have trained their staff and reorganised their records appropriately. Because they have been taking such steps over five or six years they have incurred and met expenses out of available resources—from rate support grant and rates.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about consultation, an important point. I can confirm that we have spoken to the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work and have stayed in close touch. He asked about the other bodies that we have consulted. There are some 40 of those. If he writes to me asking me to detail them I shall be happy to do so.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the timetable for action. We issued a draft circular in January making it clear that Parliament needed to approve the regulations. Therefore, three months will have elapsed before the regulations come into effect. The most important point to make is that the general principle of open access has been in existence since 1983, so local authorities have had plenty of notice. We are simply bringing to a conclusion tonight a long process of encouraging open local government.
The hon. Member for Monklands, West also asked me who will decide on the issue of serious harm, and how it will be defined and who will interpret it. The way in which such decisions are made will depend on individual circumstances, but we have emphasised that such exemptions will be the exception and will relate to exceptional cases, and will not be used frivolously or lightly. It is important to be aware that it is also a safeguard for many clients and third parties.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) raised several points. I hope that I have dealt in part with his first question relating to the definition of serious harm. He asked me when the Government planned to publish other regulations and bring them into force. For example, he talked about housing associations, which are the responsibility of the Department of the Environment, and access to school records, which is the responsibility of the Department of Education and Science. I am sure that he would not expect me to comment on when these other Departments had plans to publish regulations, but I will ensure that the record of the debate is brought to the attention of my colleagues in those other Departments. The hon. Gentleman would not expect me, as a Health Minister, to do other than relate my remarks to the regulations dealing with social service departments.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about medical access. I hope that I gave the House a clear assurance about my proposed consultations with the medical profession. If progress is not immediately forthcoming, he asked me to set a timetable for that. I am loth to do so, except to assure him, and the hon. Member for Monklands, West who is equally interested in this subject, and to repeat the assurance I gave at the opening of this brief debate, that I take the matter seriously. Promises were given by my right

hon. and learned Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury. I shall bring the matter to a successful and early conclusion.
The hon. Gentleman also asked me about the appeal mechanism. It is certainly true that appeals are made to a local authority, but there is a general right of any citizen to appeal under, or about, the regulations and how they are implemented to courts of law and to the local authority ombudsman. The hon. Gentleman recognised that and pointed that out. This is not a right of appeal to, so to speak, an internal committee of the local authority. It is not the end of the road of an individual's right to appeal.
The hon. Gentleman asked about double charging. I think he has a point, although it may be theoretical rather than practical. I shall reflect on it. Social security departments are not obliged to charge for access to computer records under the Data Protection Act 1984. The hon. Gentleman has drawn my attention to a potential anomaly which I shall certainly reflect on—

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 ( Exempted Business).

The House divided: Ayes 72, Noes 1.

Division No. 83]
[1.38 am


AYES


Amos, Alan
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Arbuthnot, James
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Ashby, David
Irvine, Michael


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Jack, Michael


Beith, A. J.
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n amp; R'dish)
Knapman, Roger


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Knowles, Michael


Boswell, Tim
Lee, John (Pendle)


Bowis, John
McCartney, Ian


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Maclean, David


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Burns, Simon
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Butterfill, John
Moss, Malcolm


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Carrington, Matthew
Neubert, Michael


Carttiss, Michael
Norris, Steve


Chapman, Sydney
Paice, James


Chope, Christopher
Porter, David (Waveney)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Gran, James
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd amp; Spald'g)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Stern, Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Durant, Tony
Summerson, Hugo


Favell, Tony
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Fishburn, John Dudley
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Freeman, Roger
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Twinn, Dr Ian


Gill, Christopher
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Gregory, Conal
Wallace, James


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Widdecombe, Ann


Harris, David
Wood, Timothy


Heathcoat-Amory, David



Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Howarth, G. (Cannock amp; B'wd)
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Mr. John M. Taylor.




NOES


Cohen, Harry
Tellers for the Noes:



Mr. Bob Cryer and



Mr. Dennis Skinner.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,


That the draft Access to Personal Files (Social Services) Regulations 1989, which were laid before this House on 16th January, be approved.

Weights and Measures (Amendment) Bill

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): We now come to the Weights and Measures—[HON. MEMBERS: "Objection."] Objection taken.

Machine Safety

Motion made, and Question put,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 4126/88, 7396/88 and the proposals described in the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Trade and Industry on 30th November 1988 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum of 11th January 1989 on machine safety: and supports the Government's intention to agree to the adoption of this directive as a step towards the completion of the single market by reducing incipient non-tariff barriers to trade.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Teddy Taylor: (seated and covered):On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is probably the most ridiculous and irrelevant exercise in which I have ever engaged. I am about to express a view on something that has already been approved by the Council of Ministers, something that has already happened, making our views irrelevant and making the House look completely stupid. May I ask whether it is in order to have the vote before you have announced the decision on whether the amendment has been selected?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I understood that Mr. Speaker's decision not to select the amendment had been communicated to him. As for his other remarks, they are not a matter for the Chair, as I am sure he recognises; but doubtless they will have been heard.

Mr. Taylor: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not want to be silly, but may I appeal to you somehow to get the two sides together to go to the Procedure Committee? What the blazes is the point of hon. Members coming here to express an opinion on something that has already been agreed? Can we not at least accept that on this issue the sovereignty of the House has disappeared?
Tonight and on Thursday hon. Members are being asked to vote on something that has happened, and on which the views of the House of Commons are of no consequence whatever. Like other hon. Members, I came here to play a part in democracy. What is the point of asking hon. Members to vote for something that does not matter at all—to express an opinion on something that has already happened, and applies to us all? Surely the House of Commons must make some sense. We are here as democrats to make decisions on things that matter, but on Thursday we shall be discussing something on which, because it has already happened, our views are completely irrelevant.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have considerable sympathy with the views that the hon. Gentleman has expressed, but these are not matters for the Chair. If the hon. Gentleman feels that the matter is appropriate for the Procedure Committee to consider, perhaps he ought to make a

submission to that Committee. As I said earlier, what he has said will doubtless have been heard. In any case, it will be on the record.

Mr. Frank Cook: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will cover himself properly.

Mr. Cook: (seated and covered): Would you have the courtesy, Sir, to explain to the House why hon. Members must endure the inverse convention of sitting here with a hat on while you can answer points of order standing in the normal way, with your head bare? Is this not a means of making hon. Members look ridiculous, and deterring them from raising points of order during a Division?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must riot hold me responsible for the conventions, traditions and Standing Orders of the House. That is a matter for the House. And when the hon. Gentleman talks about bald heads—well, with respect—

Mr. Cook: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I did not mean to imply that I held you responsible. I thought that perhaps you, from your vantage point of vastly greater experience than mine, might be able to explain the reasons for this particular requirement of the Standing Orders.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I would not dream of trying to explain to the House the reasons for our Standing Orders. If the hon. Gentleman was suggesting that on future occasions I should be appropriately covered, he might be prepared to have a whip-round for a wig for me.

The House having divided: Ayes 62, Noes 11.

Division No. 84]
[1.49 am


AYES


Amos, Alan
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Arbuthnot, James
Irvine, Michael


Ashby, David
Jack, Michael


Beith, A. J.
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Knapman, Roger


Boswell, Tim
Knowles, Michael


Bowis, John
Lee, John (Pendle)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Maclean, David


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Burns, Simon
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Carrington, Matthew
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Carttiss, Michael
Neubert, Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Norris, Steve


Chope, Christopher
Paice, James


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Cran, James
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd amp; Spald'g)
Shepherd, Cohn (Hereford)


Dorrell, Stephen
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Durant, Tony
Stern, Michael


Favell, Tony
Summerson, Hugo


Fishburn, John Dudley
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Freeman, Roger
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Twinn, Dr Ian


Gill, Christopher
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Gregory, Conal
Wallace, James


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Widdecombe, Ann


Harris, David
Wood, Timothy


Heathcoat-Amory, David



Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Mr. John M. Taylor.






NOES


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Haynes, Frank


Barron, Kevin
McCartney, Ian


Battle, John
Meale, Alan


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n amp; R'dish)



Cohen, Harry
Tellers for the Noes:


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Mr. Bob Cryer and


Dixon, Don
Mr. Dennis Skinner.


Dunnachie, Jimmy

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 4126/88, 7396/88 and the proposals described in the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Trade and Industry on 30th November 1988 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum of 11th January 1989 on machine safety; and supports the Government's intention to agree to the adoption of this directive as a step towards the completion of the single market by reducing incipient non-tariff barriers to trade.

Disabled People (Employment Opportunities)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: I am grateful for this chance to speak about employment opportunities for the disabled. Although I am not obviously disabled, as the House knows I suffer from kidney failure and require a dialysis machine to keep me alive. I make that point not to seek the House's sympathy but to underline the fact that disabled people are not just those in wheelchairs or who are missing a limb—that group makes up as little as 5 per cent. of the total. The disabled can be deaf or blind, they can suffer from epilepsy or be injured at birth or in an accident. They are a diverse and varied group and in some cases their disabilities may take the form of personality problems.
From disabled people I have met I have gained a strong impression that they all want to be useful. They can overcome their inevitable limitations if only they are given the chance. What is more, having something to do—like a job—drives out the introspection and despair that come to those who are struck down or incapacitated by serious illness or accident. I refer to the feeling that a person is finished and is of no further use to himself or his family. To that extent, employment opportunities for disabled people give them a dignity and value of a sort that cannot always be understood by the able-bodied. It cannot be overestimated, and employers should be aware of it when being asked to accept disabled people in their companies.
Although it is not entirely clear how many people make up the disabled work force, the recent Office of Population Censuses and Surveys report stated that there are about 6 million disabled people in this country, of whom 70 per cent. are aged 60 or over. Some who were included under the heading "disabled" probably would not think of themselves in those terms, but whatever the case, it is not unreasonable to point out that about 1 million people, using the OPCS definition, are disabled and of employable age. To that extent, the duty laid down in the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1941—that employers with 20 or more employees should draw 3 per cent. of their work force from the registered disabled—might seem reasonable, particularly as there are 25 million people in work in the United Kingdom. That would suggest that there is a pool of 700,000 registered disabled people to draw on. In fact, that is not so. My hon. Friend the Minister told me in a parliamentary reply last December that there were 374,238 registered disabled; so the figure in the Act is unrealistic, to say the least. One wonders why we continue with it.
On the other hand, what about the 600,000 unregistered disabled? How many of them have employment, and how many cannot work? I do not know whether my hon. Friend can shed any light on that point, but it needs definition.
Registration as a disabled person is voluntary. It is open to any person who, on account of injury, disease or congenital deformity is substantially handicapped in obtaining or keeping employment, or in undertaking work on his own account. Registration means having a green card, and one's name is kept on the register of disabled


people held by the disablement resettlement officer, who, in turn, is the interface with industry and the employment training scheme.
Under the scheme, someone seeking employment training will see the disablement resettlement officer, who will either pass the person on to the training agent whose job is to assess his capabilities and produce an action plan, or direct him to an employment rehabilitation centre for a two-day assessment of his potential.
One of the employment rehabilitiation centres serving the Newbury area is at Egham, where there is a 12-week waiting list. That shows its popularity, and perhaps its need to expand. If the training agent decides that a person does not need to go to the employment rehabilitation centre, he can direct him to a training manager, whose responsiblity is to find him a training course or, ideally, a placement in industry. Some may go to workshops on the sheltered placement scheme.
Recently I visited Enham Industries, at Enham Alamein near Andover. The centre provides employment for disabled people in a range of occupations and serves my constituency. It is financed by voluntary bodies and is widely used by the employment training scheme. It provides sheltered placement, for which it receives from the employment services £3,150 for each person it takes on in its workshops. All of those whom it takes on are fairly severely disabled. Its liaison personnel help to place disabled people in ordinary jobs, going out and interviewing employers.
Enham believes in a very careful assessment of those who come to it and likes to do a two-week assessment—as it puts it—to discover the disabled person as an individual with all his or her problems. I think it feels that the two-hour assessment under the employment training scheme by the training agent is far too brief to be meaningful. I admit that its assessment costs £150, against £20 for the assessment by the employment training agent, but since assessment seems to me to be the touchstone for discovering a disabled person's capabilities I was sorry to hear that the local employment training initiative had no interface with Enham in the sense that it synchronised its efforts with those of Enham and that, if employment training bought training places at Enham, its budget enabled it to buy only four days a week. It was my clear impression that under the employment training scheme the provision of assessment and the training of disabled persons is underfinanced. Let me give just one example. The sheltered placement training total at Enham is currently 60, although there is room for 70 people.
What, then, of disabled people seeking jobs in industry? Everyone I have spoken to talked of the reluctance of too many employers to consider disabled people. As one handicapped person put it, it is as if "disabled" were a taboo word. It is said that many disabled persons prefer not to register, to avoid categorising themselves.
I understand that the Spastics Society in England and Wales conducted a survey in which 50 people with disabilities applied for jobs, disclosing their disability. At the same time 50 able-bodied people applied for the same jobs. Invariably those who listed disabilities did not even get an interview. It may be that companies are not sufficiently aware of the £6,000 grant they can receive to adapt their premises and equipment for a disabled employee, but the fact is that a large number of disabled people still look to sheltered placement for employment. I do not belive that it has to be so.
If I hold the view that more finance is needed for employment training in terms of the disabled and for sheltered placement I am also of the opinion that much more encouragement needs to be given to industry to think about employing disabled people and to recognise that "disabled" does not refer simply to people in wheelchairs.
Recently I met Mr. Geoff Busby, the information technology project director of the British Computer Society. Geoff is a spastic with the sort of handicaps that might make it seem unlikely that he could ever work. In fact, he has three A-levels and 10 O-levels and a master's degree in computer technology from Essex university. Because he cannot use his hands, he turned to computers since he understands them and can operate them with his nose. He has been seconded from GEC Computer Services to his present job. Clearly he is the right person to head up an organisation devoted to the disabled and to getting them jobs. He is unequivocal in his belief that industry needs to be educated in the potential that disabled people possess, particularly in areas such as information technology.
I am aware that in 1984 the CBI and the TUC, together with the Manpower Services Commission, drew up a code of good practice on the employment of disabled people, but, as Mr. Busby told me, the equipment used for training the disabled is often old-fashioned. Training schemes are aimed too much at the severely disabled, and too many conferences about employing the disabled are attended mainly by the disabled. Like everyone I have spoken to, he believes that what is needed is a massive promotion campaign aimed at industry, particularly where it uses computers, VDUs and equipment with a keyboard that can be coupled to a voice synthesiser.
To sum up, what I am asking of my hon. Friend is that his Department provides more finance for training and education about the potential that disabled persons possess.
Lastly, I suggest that we look at the inducements available to a disabled person who gets involved in training. He or she will receive unemployment benefit, plus a £10 training allowance. Is it enough to persuade him or her to try very hard, particularly if the only prospect is a low-paid job with a salary not much above the level of benefit?
From a string of parliamentary answers it is clear that too many Government Departments, the House included, employ only a minuscule percentage of disabled people. If we are to give impetus to encouraging industry to create opportunities for the disabled, perhaps we should set an example ourselves. There may be no better place than in the Houses of Parliament.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Lee): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) on having secured this Adjournment debate on employment opportunities for disabled people. I fully understand his deep interest. in the subject.
The Government have a long-standing commitment to ensuring that people with disabilities are allowed to develop their talents fully within the labour market. Indeed, it has been the policy of successive Governments


to provide the help that such people may need to obtain employment, to develop their skills and expertise, and to achieve their aspirations at work.
It is important that people with disabilities should be able to bring their skills and abilities to bear fully in the labour market and to share in the benefits that able-bodied people obtain from work. The continuing growth in the number of employment opportunities and the emergence of skill shortages which will be exacerbated by current population trends reinforce this importance.
My Department has been actively engaged for many years in developing employment and training provision for people with disabilities. There is a lack of precise information about the employment situation for these people. However, it is clear that many of them enjoy a very satisfying working life. We are aware, however, that this is not the case for all people with disabilities and we are constantily trying, through the development of our programmes, to ensure improved prospects for people. To do this we need to take into account relevant issues such as changes in the general economic situation and the increasingly high, and quite justified, aspirations of many people with disabilities and their wish to live and work in an environment in which they are as far as possible integrated with their able-bodied fellow citizens.
I am sure that hon. Members will agree that what I have to say this evening demonstrates that we have made significant progress over recent years in developing provision in this direction while also ensuring that separated, or sheltered, provision is available for those people for whom it is the only practicable answer to their problems.
It is evident from working in this area over a period that two things remain constant. First, not only do people have to contend with a very wide variety of disabilities but the extent to which disabilities handicap people in relation to employment can vary immensely. I am sure we all know of people with quite severe disabilities who successfully obtain and hold down jobs with little or no help from others. On the other hand, there are many who require more careful, and often continuing, support. Second, the impact of what we do turns on what others are able to do. The important role which employers need to play is self-evident, and I am encouraged by what I have seen of their efforts, particularly those who have gained recognition under the Department's fit for work award scheme. We also need, and are grateful for, the support of voluntary organisations. This is also a useful point at which to mention the Government's appreciation for the advice which is received from the National Advisory Council on the Employment of Disabled People and its chairman, Mr. Ken Baker. I particularly value the links with the national advisory service, which I have been able to develop through Mr. Baker since his appointment as chairman.
Despite all that has been achieved—and I believe that this has been considerable—the Government recognise the need for constant attention to this area of their activities. I shall return to this point when speaking of current activities within the Employment Department group to seek a clearer view of the people with disabilities who need

help in obtaining and retaining employment, and to review all provision for the employment and training of people with disabilities.
Time does not permit a description of the entire range of provision available. The scope is very wide, as 1 know from visits to a large number of the facilities and organisations concerned, including in recent months the Barnsley Light Industries Sheltered Workshop, the Queen Elizabeth Foundation for the Disabled and the Royal National Institute for the Dears centre in Birmingham and indeed, later today, the institute's residential centre, Court Grange. in Devon.
However, I would like to make a couple of broad observations about this provision before giving some more detailed information about its scale and nature. Services provided through the Employment Department's employment service and Training Agency are very comprehensive. They cover assessment, rehabilitation, training, sheltered employment and placing services. There are also, broadly speaking, two distinct types of service. There are those services available to all job seekers and those which are specifically for people with disabilities. Most of our disabled clients benefit from the first type of service, mainstream programmes. At a time when we are emphasising the importance of integration it is right that this should be the case.
In the period 1983–88 placings of disabled people into work rose some 50 per cent. to 94,000. Over the same period the number of people with severe disabilities placed into sheltered employment rose from 15,000 to 18,000. Levels of expendiure are also not insignificant. In 1987–88 some £126 million was spent on programmes specifically for people with disabilities. This included £86 million on sheltered employment and £23 million on employment rehabilitation.
We encourage people with disabilities to make full use of the mainstream services available at jobcentres. They can, for example, find out about job vacancies and the range of employment, training and enterprise programmes, as well as the special services for people with disabilities. Many of them find jobs without further assistance, and often quickly but others require a greater degree of help. Often training will be needed. For young people the youth training scheme—YTS—provides school leavers with a bridge between school and work. The Training Agency has introduced a wide range of special help to encourage young people with disabilities to enter YTS. This includes delayed entry, extension of stay, assessment courses and special help such as adaptations to premises or communication aids for deaf people.
For adults, our aim is that training should be available for those people with disabilities who need it to obtain or retain employment. Where possible they should be able to participate fully in mainstream training programmes, and there are relaxed eligibility criteria to enable them to do this. Most significantly, provision for people with disabilities is an integral part of employment training. The client-centred approach, with each trainee having a personal action plan, is particularly suitable in this instance. Furthermore, wherever possible, people with disabilities train alongside their able-bodied counterparts. The early results of this programme are very encouraging.
A range of special help is available to participants. This includes the loan of special equipment and financial assistance with adaptations to equipment and premises.
There is also a personal reader service for blind trainees and a communicator service for people who are deaf. Residential training is also available if necessary.
In addition to the mainstream services there is a range of specialist help. For example, there are more than 400 specially trained disablement resettlement officers who provide an advisory counselling and placing service for those people with disabilities who have particular difficulty finding a job. Their commitment and expertise is the cornerstone of our success. Disablement resettlement officers are able to help people take full advantage of the range of special schemes which are available to help people with disabilities overcome problems which they may encounter in getting or keeping a job. To give brief details of these. may I say that the fares to work scheme offers financial assistance to people who are unable to use public transport as a result of their disability.
The special aids to employment scheme provides people with the special equipment needed to do their jobs. Many of the items issued are new technology based, including computers, desk top publishing equipment, and equipment providing speech output or large character display for people with visual handicaps. In some cases equipment is provided so as to enable people to work at home if they are unable to travel to work. The adaptation to premises and equipment scheme provides financial assistance to employers who need to make adaptations in order to employ a specific disabled person.
The personal reader service helps towards the cost of employing a sighted reader to help visually handicapped people at work.
Finally, the job introduction scheme allows employers to offer a trial period of employment, usually six weeks, to people with disabilities. The employer receives a grant of £45 per week for each disabled person recruited.
For some people the help offered by the Training Agency's employment rehabilitation service is essential before they can seek work. This service aims to assess the capabilities and preferences of people to help them decide what sort of work is most suitable for them. It is delivered in a number of ways. As well as the employment rehabilitation centres, of which there are 26 throughout the country, a network of mobile and more flexible facilities is being developed. There are also significant developments under way to improve the quality of rehabilitation by developing modules for learning job-search techniques, literacy, numeracy and core skills. For many people with severe disabilities, employment means independence, self-esteem and social contact and represents a major step towards integration into the life of a community. But in spite of all the help that is available, some people are just not able to compete in the open labour market.
The provision of suitable work arrangements for people with severe disabilities is an issue of particular importance. Towards the end of 1987 I chaired a very interesting and useful conference which explored this in some depth.
The employment service is providing support for over 18,000 people with severe disabilities under the sheltered employment programme. The majority of opportunities are in sheltered workshops and factories run by voluntary bodies, local authorities and Remploy. In view of its importance in this field, I take a close personal interest in the affairs of Remploy, holding quarterly meetings with its chairman, Ivor Cohen. There will clearly continue to be a need for such provision. However, the past three or four

years have seen a rapid growth in the sheltered placement scheme which enables some severely disabled people to work in an integrated environment alongside able-bodied workers. The Government make good the deficit between the pay people earn as a result of their actual productivity and the normal weekly wage for the work undertaken.
That the sheltered placement scheme has commanded widespread support is clear from the scale of its recent development. By the end of next month, 5,000 people will be supported under the scheme. I am hoping for further expansion in 1989–90.
I should emphasise that the scheme could not work without the considerable efforts of sponsoring organisations—local authorities, voluntary bodies and Remploy—as well as the willing participation of host organisations, many of whom are private sector employers operating in a highly competitive market. What makes them so willing then to take on workers who may be quite severely disabled? There is probably no single answer to that question. One factor perhaps stands out here. The sheltered placement scheme is an initiative which recognises explicitly that some people cannot contribute to the productivity of the firm on level terms with fully fit colleagues. We therefore say to the employer, "You pay for that person's ability, we will pay for the disability". A simple enough concept perhaps, although not always easy to translate into practice. But it seems to work. The scheme offers the chance to work in what is, in effect, Open employment alongside fit colleagues.
I have mentioned already the absolute importance of the role to be played by employers in improving employment opportunities for people with disabilities. it is crucial to the development of opportunities for all people whose disabilities put them at a disadvantage in the labour market.
There are two approaches to obtaining the support and involvement of employers which need to be considered. There is first the quota scheme, an issue which engenders deeply held but widely differing views. However, there is general acceptance that the scheme is not working as well as was intended when it was introduced in 1944. Indeed, it is believed by many people that it cannot work in its present form and is seen by many employers as unhelpful to the promotion of equal opportunities in employment for people with disabilities. The Government are committed to promoting equal opportunities by education and persuasion backed by practical help for individuals and employers. The code of good practice on the employment of disabled people was introduced in 1984 with the support of the CBI and the TUC. It is full of useful advice and guidance on recruitment, career development, retention of existing employees who become disabled, and so on. It was the first of its kind in Europe.
Employers may also have access to one of the 71 local teams of the disablement advisory service which offers encouragement and help to adopt positive policies and practices in the employment of people with disabilities. It also acts as the access point for employers to many of the schemes to which I have referred earlier.
One particular stumbling block to the further development of provision is the general lack of information about the numbers, characteristics and needs of people with disabilities who are handicapped in relation to employment. The recently published second report of the OPCS survey of disability in Great Britain provides an estimate of the numbers of disabled people in employment


and those who are unemployed. However, the report does not provide sufficiently precise information about economically-active people whose disabilities are relevant to their employability.
As I have said, we are not dealing here with a static situation. The programmes that my Department supports need to reflect those changes which are taking place, for example, in the composition and size of the labour market and in the attitudes of people with disabilities. I should like to close by referring to two important steps taken recently to review our policies and programmes in the light of such developments.
First, we have commissioned a major research project to establish the number of economically active people with handicaps that are relevant to their employment and to provide information about their characteristics, their experience of employment, their use of the employment service and Training Agency services and their need for employment-related assistance. The obvious sensitivities make this a very difficult area into which to inquire.
However, the methodology for the survey is being developed and the results are expected in the second half of this year.
Secondly, as announced in the House on 9 March 1988 by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, we have initiated a wide-ranging review of the policies and services supported by the employment service and the Training Agency to help the employment of people with disabilities. This review is taking account of the advice received from various quarters, including the Public Accounts Committee in its report on employment assistance to disabled adults. It is now well under way.
The issues to be examined in the review are complex and it is important to the long-term interests of people with disabilities that we should take sufficient time to get it right. I hope, in particular, that the conclusion of the review and the consultation which I expect to follow will give us an appropriate basis for ensuring that people with disabilities receive the best possible support for getting and retaining work and for developing their full potential, as far as is practicable, alongside their able-bodied colleagues over the next decade.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes past Two o'clock.